Bombay High Court
Yogendrakumar Jairam Borkar vs Zilla Parishad Nagpur Thri Its ... on 16 August, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1 wp 2084.03.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 2084/2003
Yogendrakumar s/o Jairam Borkar,
Aged about 42 years, Occ.-Service,
R/o.-Nirmal Colony, Nara Road,
Post Jaripatka, Nagpur, Tahsil and District Nagpur. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1] Zilla Parishad, Nagpur
through its Chief Executive Officer.
2] Additional Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur. R
ESPONDENTS
None for the petitioner.
None for the respondent no.1.
Shri P. S. Tembhare, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.2.
Coram : Smt. Vasanti A Naik &
Kum. Indira Jain, JJ.
Dated : 16
August, 2016.
th
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this Writ Petition the petitioner challenges the order of the
respondent no.1-Zilla Parishad, Nagpur dated 29-04-2003, terminating the
services of the petitioner with effect from 31-05-2003.
According to the petitioner, he belongs to the Scheduled Castes and
was sponsored through the Employment Exchange to the respondent no.1-
Zilla Parishad for appointment on the post of Draftsman. The petitioner was
appointed as a Draftsman by an order dated 07-02-1986. Some other
2 wp 2084.03.odt
employee, Shri Pully filed an appeal under Rule 14 of the Maharashtra Zilla
Parishads District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 before the
Additional Commissioner, Nagpur claiming therein that he was entitled to be
promoted as a draftsman. In the said appeal, Shri Pully sought his
promotion and also challenged the appointment of the petitioner. The appeal
was decided by the Additional Commissioner on 28-02-1991. The Additional
Commissioner directed the Zilla Parishad to promote Shri Pully on the post of
Draftsman but did not disturb the appointment of the petitioner. It was
observed by the Additional Commissioner, that the services of the petitioner
could not have been disturbed while promoting Shri Pully to the post of
Draftsman. Shri Pully, filed a Writ Petition against the order of the
Additional Commissioner. The said Writ Petition, bearing Writ Petition No.
2042 of 1991 was partly allowed and though the Zilla Parishad did not
promote Shri Pully on the post of Draftsman, the Zilla Parishad was directed
to pay the monetary benefits of the promotional post of Draftsman to
Shri Pully. This Court, however did not interfere with the order of the
Additional Commissioner, so far as it directed the Zilla Parishad not to disturb
the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Draftsman. Shri Anant
Dhomne, yet another junior Draftsman filed Writ Petition No.2533 of 1991
seeking promotion to the post of Draftsman. In the said Writ Petition, the
present petitioner was not joined as a respondent. While directing the Zilla
Parishad to decide the claim of Shri Dhomne by the judgment dated
04-02-2002, this Court did not direct that the services of the petitioner
should be terminated and Shri Dhomne should be accommodated in the post
of the petitioner. Since the judgment in the case of Shri Dhomne was not
3 wp 2084.03.odt
implemented by the Zilla Parishad, Shri Dhomne filed a Contempt Petition.
In the said Contempt Petition, by an order dated 07-03-2003, this Court
granted only a week's time to the Zilla Parishad to promote Shri Dhomne on
the post of Draftsman. Probably, being intimidated by the order dated
07-03-2003, the Zilla Parishad terminated the services of the petitioner by
the impugned order dated 29-04-2003, so as to accommodate Shri Dhomne.
On a perusal of the Writ Petition and the documents annexed thereto
and on hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent
no.2, we find that a case is made out by the petitioner for effectively
challenging the impugned order. The petitioner was appointed as a
Draftsman, way back in the year 1986. Shri Pully had challenged the
appointment of the petitioner on the post of Draftsman in the year 1988 and
the appeal filed by Shri Pully under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1964 was allowed
by the Additional Commissioner, without disturbing the appointment of the
petitioner. In the Writ Petition filed by Shri Pully against the order of the
Additional Commissioner, this Court had again not disturbed the
appointment of the petitioner. Also, in the Writ Petition filed by
Shri Dhomne, there was no occasion for this Court to consider whether the
petitioner is required to be terminated for accommodating Shri Dhomne on
the post of Draftsman. It appears that merely on the basis of the order
passed in the contempt proceedings filed by Shri Dhomne, directing the Zilla
Parishad to immediately promote Shri Dhomne on the post of Draftsman
within seven days, the impugned order terminating the petitioner is passed.
In our view, on the basis of the order passed in the Contempt Petition
4 wp 2084.03.odt
directing the Zilla Parishad to accommodate Shri Dhomne on the post of a
Draftsman, the services of the petitioner could not have been dispensed with,
more so when the petitioner was appointed in the year 1986 and the order
in the contempt proceedings was passed in the year 2003. In the Writ
Petitions filed by Shri Pully and Shri Dhomne, the appointment of the
petitioner was never disturbed and hence on the basis of the order in the
Contempt Petition, the services of petitioner could not have been terminated.
The impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid the Writ Petition is allowed. The
impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the
aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUD
GE
Deshmukh
5 wp 2084.03.odt
C E R T I F I C A T E
"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true
and correct copy of original signed Judgment."
Uploaded by : Uploaded on :
(Deshmukh) 19/08/2016
P.A. to the Hon'ble Judge.
