Bombay High Court
Sukhdev Shravan Chite And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 18 April, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
(1) W.P. No. 10513 & 10517 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Writ Petition No. 10513 of 2015
District : Nandurbar
1. Abaji Shivdas Jadhav,
Age : major,
Occupation : Service,
As Awal Karkoon,
Office of the Collector,
Nandurbar.
2. Naresh Ramdas Saidane,
Age : Major,
Occupation : Service,
As Clerk in the office of
Tahsildar, Shahada,
District : Nandurbar.
3. Dilip Pundlik Kulkarni,
Age : Major,
Occupation : Service,
As Awal Karkoon,
Office of the Collector,
Nandurbar.
4. Sunil Nimba Khairnar,
Age : Major,
Occupation : Service,
As Clerk in the office
of Tahsildar, Taloda,
District : Nandurbar. .. Petitioners.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector, Nandurbar. .. Respondents.
............
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:50:47 :::
(2) W.P. No. 10513 & 10517 of 2015
With
Writ Petition No. 10517 of 2015
District : Dhule
1. Sukhdev Shravan Chite,
Age : Major,
Occupation : Service,
Plot No. 99,
Indraprastha Colony,
Opp. State Bank,
Kondur Road, Devpur,
Dhule.
2. Shrikant Namdev Desle,
Age : Major,
Occupation : Service,
Plot No.18, Madhav Colony,
Parola Road, Dhule.
3. Kiran Baburao Kamble,
Age : Major,
Occupation : Service,
27-A, Bijlee Nagar,
Wadibhokar Road,
Devpur, Dhule. .. Petitioners.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector, Dhule. .. Respondents.
............
Mr. Suresh D. Dhongade, Advocate, for the
petitioners in both petitions.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader,
for respondent nos.1 and 2 in both petitions.
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:50:47 :::
(3) W.P. No. 10513 & 10517 of 2015
............
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 18TH APRIL 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.S. Shinde, J.) :
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the learned Asst. Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents.
2.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard finally with consent of the parties.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they
were appointed on different posts by order dated 19th
August 1995, issued by the office of the District
Collector, Dhule. The learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioners invited our attention to the fact
that the employees whose names are mentioned at
Serial Nos.9 and 10 in the said appointment order,
their Original Applications bearing Nos. 746/2001 and
269/2001, respectively, have been decided by the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at
Aurangabad [For short, "the Tribunal"] and they have
been given reinstatement on seniority from the date
of their appointment though it is held that they are
not entitled for back wages. It is the submission of
the learned Counsel for the petitioners, that the
petitioners' names stand at Serial Nos.11, 12, 14, 15
(4) W.P. No. 10513 & 10517 of 2015
and 16 and, therefore, the petitioners are also
entitled for the benefit of seniority from the date
of their initial appointment. He, therefore, submits
that the Tribunal ought to have decided the Original
Applications filed by the petitioners on merits.
However, their Applications have been rejected only
on the ground of delay.
4. On the other hand, the learned Asst.
Government Pleader appearing for the State submits
that there was inordinate delay in filing the
Original Applications by the petitioners. Therefore,
taking into consideration the length of delay, the
Tribunal has rightly rejected the Applications filed
by the petitioners. She, therefore, urged that the
petitions may be rejected.
5. We have carefully considered the entire
documents placed on record. It appears that the
Tribunal has granted relief to reckon seniority from
the date of appointment, in case of candidates at
Serial Nos.9 and 10 in the appointment order, namely,
Kum. Vasave Yashoda Devji and Smt. Kokani Sunita
Tejaram. There is no dispute that the petitioners
and the afore mentioned original applicants were
appointed by the District Collector by order dated
19th August 1995 on various posts. In that view of
the matter, instead of rejecting the Applications of
the petitioners on the ground of delay, the Tribunal
would have considered the cases of the petitioners on
(5) W.P. No. 10513 & 10517 of 2015
merits. It is true, that there was inordinate delay
in filing the Original Applications. However, length
of delay may loose its significance in view of the
fact that the other similarly situated employees,
namely, Kum. Vasave Yashoda Devji and Smt. Kokani
Sunita Tejaram, who were appointed by the same order
dated 19th August 1995, have been granted relief of
reckoning seniority from the date of their
appointment. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the
petitioners is right in contending that there is
continuous cause of action for the petitioners since
they are in service and they will lose some benefits
due to not reckoning their seniority from the date of
their appointments.
6. In the result, both Petitions are allowed in
terms of prayer clauses "c", "d" and "e" which read
as under :-
Writ Petition No. 10513 of 2015
(c) The order dated 17.07.2015 passed by
MAT, Aurangabad, in M.A. No.135/2014 in O.A.
St.No. 545/2014 be quashed and set aside.
(d) The delay caused in filing the Original
Application (St.No.545/2014) may kindly be
condoned in the interest of justice.
(e) The learned MAT be directed to hear and
decide the Original Application
(St.No.545/2014) on its own merit as
expeditiously as possible.
(6) W.P. No. 10513 & 10517 of 2015
Writ Petition No. 10517 of 2015
(c) The order dated 17.07.2015 passed by
MAT, Aurangabad, in M.A. No.134/2014 in O.A.
St.No. 542/2014 be quashed and set aside.
(d) The delay caused in filing the Original
Application (St.No.542/2014) may kindly be
condoned in the interest of justice.
(e) The learned MAT be directed to hear and
decide the Original Application
(St.No.542/2014)
ig on its own merit as
expeditiously as possible.
7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs.
(SANGITRAO S. PATIL) (S.S. SHINDE)
JUDGE JUDGE
..........
puranik / WP10513.15etc
