1 wp825.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.825 OF 2015
Nilkanth s/o. Mahadeo Rokde,
Aged about 80 years, Occ. Retired
Government Servant, r/o. Plot No.39,
Central Excise Layout, Telecom Nagar,
Khamla, Nagpur-25. .......... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. Government of Maharashtra,
Building and Public Work
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. Chief Engineer and Joint Secretary,
Public Works and Housing Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai. .......... RESPONDENTS
____________________________________________________________
Miss Meenaxi Iyer, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Tembre, A.G.P. for the Respondents 1 and 2.
____________________________________________________________
::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:25:37 :::
2 wp825.15.odt
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 18.9.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J) :
1. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the Order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur dt.20.6.2014 dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner and holding that the petitioner was not entitled to promotion, as sought.
2. The petitioner was an employee of the Central Provinces (old Madhya Pradesh) and after he had secured the diploma in Craftsmanship of Overseer Trade in 1954, he was appointed in the Central Provinces. On 21.4.1960, Bombay Gazette Notification was issued, as a result of which a number of Overseers working in the Central Provinces were allocated to the re-organized State of Maharashtra w.e.f. 1.11.1956. The petitioner was included in the list of Overseers that were entitled to be absorbed in the State of Maharashtra and the name of the petitioner finds place in the list that was annexed to the Order dt.22.2.1960. The Recruitment Rules ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:25:37 ::: 3 wp825.15.odt for the Maharashtra Services of Engineering Class I and II were notified in the year 1960 and the Government Resolution was issued on 10.2.1961, whereby the Sub-Overseers allotted from the erstwhile Hyderabad State and possessing two years' Diploma Course Certificate, as stipulated in the said Government Resolution, were entitled to be absorbed as overseers. The petitioner was granted a deemed date as an Overseer on 11.1.1965. The petitioner passed the professional examination meant for an Overseer in November, 1966 and he was promoted as an Overseer on 1.2.1967. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to further promotion as the petitioner was already absorbed as an Overseer in the year 1960 in the State of Maharashtra vide Order dt.22.2.1960. The employees that had put in 10 years of service as Overseers and that had passed the two years diploma Course as specified, were entitled to be promoted as the Sub-Divisional Officers. The petitioner was promoted as a Sub-Divisional Officer on 31.12.1982 whereas, according to the petitioner, he ought to have been promoted as a Sub-Divisional Officer on 28.11.1970. The petitioner retired as a Sub-Divisional Officer in the year 1993. The petitioner has sought for the deemed date of promotion as a Sub-Divisional Officer in Class II services w.e.f. 28.11.1970 and further promotion as an Executive ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:25:37 ::: 4 wp825.15.odt Engineer w.e.f. 28.2.1986 along with the consequential benefits. Since the Original Application of the petitioner was dismissed by the impugned order, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.
3. Miss Meenaxi Iyer, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Bombay Government Gazette Notification dt.21.4.1960 clearly shows that the petitioner was absorbed as an Overseer in the re-organized State of Maharashtra and he was not absorbed as a Sub-Overseer. It is submitted that since 10 years of service as an Overseer would entitle an employee for promotion to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer viz. a Class II Post, the petitioner was entitled to be promoted in the Class II Post as a Sub-Divisional Officer on 28.11.1970. It is stated that in accordance with the Rules, the petitioner would be entitled to promotion to the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 28.2.1986. It is submitted that merely because the petitioner had appeared in the Overseer examination, the respondents could not have promoted the petitioner as an Overseer in 1967 when he was actually absorbed as an Overseer in the re-organized State of Maharashtra in the year 1960. It is submitted that though the case of the petitioner was similar to the case of Mr.M.L.Tapas whose Writ Petition was allowed by this Court, ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:25:37 ::: 5 wp825.15.odt the Tribunal has wrongly held that the qualifications of Mr.Tapas and the qualifications of the petitioner were distinct and separate. It is submitted that in fact the subjects in which the petitioner had appeared while securing the diploma in Craftsmanship of Overseer Trade are more than the subjects that were prescribed for the Course, of which Mr.Tapas possesses the Certificate. It is submitted that all these aspects of the matter as also the Bombay Government Gazette Notification dt.21.1.1960 were not considered by the Tribunal in the right perspective while dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner.
4. Mr.P.S.Tembre, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that though there is a mention in the Bombay Government Gazette Notification dt.21.4.1960 pertaining to allocation/absorption of the petitioner as an Overseer in the re-organized State of Maharashtra, the petitioner had appeared in the examination meant for the Overseers and had passed the same only in the year 1966 as a result of which he was promoted as an Overseer on 1.2.1967. It is submitted that the Craftsmanship Course from Koni-Bilaspur (M.P.) as possessed by the petitioner is different from the Course of Overseer which was ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:25:37 ::: 6 wp825.15.odt possessed by Mr.Tapas. It is submitted that the petitioner was not absorbed as an Overseer in the re-organized State of Maharashtra but was absorbed as a Sub-Overseer as he was holding the diploma in Craftsmanship. It is stated that the case of the petitioner and Mr.Tapas is different and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not granted the relief to the petitioner.
5. It is apparent on a perusal of the Bombay Government Gazette Notification dt.21.4.1960 that the petitioner was absorbed as an Overseer in the re-organized State of Maharashtra and not as a Sub-Overseer. The said order was never amended by the respondents. Merely because the petitioner had passed the professional examination of Overseer in November, 1966, he could not have been absorbed as an Overseer in the year 1967, as is said to have been done by the respondents. The petitioner had put in 10 years of service as an Overseer in the State of Maharashtra and therefore, he was entitled to be promoted as a Sub-Divisional Officer or in Class II services w.e.f. 28.11.1970. As per the Rules, the petitioner was also entitled to further promotion as an Executive Engineer w.e.f. 28.2.1986. The petitioner was however not promoted to the Class II services and as an Executive Engineer w.e.f. ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:25:37 :::
7 wp825.15.odt 28.11.1970 and 28.2.1986 respectively on an assumption that the petitioner was not absorbed in the State of Maharashtra as an Overseer but was absorbed as a Sub-Overseer. We do not find any substantial difference in the qualifications of Mr.Tapas and the petitioner. The documents pertaining to the Course and the diploma possessed by them were placed before the Tribunal and are also annexed to this Writ Petition. The Tribunal was not justified in the circumstances of the case to deny the relief to the petitioner when similar relief was granted to Mr.M.L.Tapas after he filed the Writ Petition. Since we find that the petitioner was absorbed as an Overseer in the year 1960 and not as a Sub-overseer, the prayer made by the petitioner before the Tribunal needs to be granted.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned Order is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant deemed date of promotion to the petitioner in Class II services w.e.f. 28.11.1970 and further promotion as an Executive Engineer w.e.f. 28.12.1986. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the petitioner would however not be entitled to interest on the amount that is liable to be paid to the petitioner towards difference of salary as the petitioner had belatedly ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:25:37 ::: 8 wp825.15.odt filed the Original Application in the year 1992 when the petitioner was on the verge of retirement, though the petitioner had sought promotion in Class II services, with effect from 28.11.1970.
The respondents are directed to release the monetary benefits to the petitioner within four months.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE [jaiswal] ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:25:37 ::: 9 wp825.15.odt ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:25:37 :::