Vasant Ramchandra Puranik vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 7112 Bom

                                                 1                       W.P.No.1169/07




                                                                                   
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT




                                                           
                                                BOMBAY

                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD.




                                                          
                                   WRIT PETITION NO.1169 OF 2007



              Vasant S/o Ramchandra Puranik,




                                              
              Age 64 years, Occ.Retired
              Sr.Assistant Water Supply,
                             
              R/o Flat No.1, Shrirang Arcade,
              Pundlik Nagar Road, Garkheda,
              Aurangabad.                   ... Petitioner.
                            
                                       Versus

              1. The State of Maharashtra,
              through the Secretary,
      

              Revenue Dept. Mantralaya,
              Mumbai-400 032.
   



              2. The Chief Executive Officer,
              Zilla Pariahsd, Aurangabad.

              3. The Executive Engineer,





              Water Supply Department,
              Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.                   ... Respondents.

                                                     ...





              Mr.S.D.Joshi, advocate for the petitioner.
              Mrs.M.A.Deshpande, Addl. Government Pleader for
              the State.
              Mr.A.A.Jagatkar, advocate for Respondent Nos.2
              and 3.

                                        CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND
                                                K.L.WADANE,JJ.

                                        Date    : 09.12.2016.







              PER COURT :




                                                                                      
              1.               Heard.




                                                              
              2.               Mr.Joshi,       learned           counsel           for       the




                                                             
              petitioner             strenuously          contends             that          the

petitioner was entitled for the grant of time

scale promotion. The juniors to the petitioner

were granted the benefit of time scale promotion.

The petitioner was denied the said benefit. The

reason for denial of the said benefit was

communicated to the petitioner after his

retirement on 15.7.2000. The petitioner retired

from service in April 1999. The learned counsel

submits that it is mandatory to communicate the

adverse remarks to the petitioner. In fact all

gradings are required to be communicated. The

learned counsel relies on the judgment of the

Apex Court in a case of "DEV DUTT Vs. UNION OF

INDIA AND OTHERS" reported in (2008) 8 Supreme

Court Cases 725. The learned counsel further

submits that if the Confidential Reports are not

sent to the delinquent Officer by Registered

Post, there is no evidence to indicate that the

same were received by the petitioner. Denial of

senior time scale to the petitioner is arbitrary

and unjust. The learned counsel relies on the

judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Vijay

Kumar, I.A.S., Vs. State of Maharashtra and

others" reported in AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2060.

The learned counsel further submits that even the

Government has instructed that the adverse

remarks are required to be communicated on or

before 1st of June of the said year.

ig Even if it

is assumed that the petitioner was communicated

of the adverse remarks in the Confidential

Reports on 5.8.1997 of the years 1995-96 and on

20.10.1997 for the years 1996-97, the same is

belated. The petitioner is denied opportunity to

represent in respect of the adverse remarks. The

petitioner be provided with the senior time

scale.

3. The learned counsel for the Zilla

Parishad, Mr.Jagatkar, submits that considering

the Confidential Reports, the Departmental

Promotional Committee has found the petitioner

ineligible.

4. We have heard learned A.G.P. also.

5. If the adverse remarks in the

Confidential Reports are not communicated to the

delinquent, certainly those adverse remarks can

not be used against the said delinquent as he

would not get any opportunity to represent

against the said adverse remarks.

5. igIn the present case, it is manifest

from the letter dated 15.7.2000 that the

petitioner has been served with the Confidential

Reports for the year 1995-96 and 1996-97 on

5.8.1997 and 20.10.1997 respectively. There is

no express denial to the same by the petitioner,

even in his representation made to the

authorities on 9.4.1999.

6. The Departmental Promotion Committee

has considered the Confidential Reports of

various persons in its meeting held on

10.12.1998. The petitioner could have

represented about the adverse remarks appearing

in his Confidential Report during this period of

more than one year and if the petitioner would

have represented against the said adverse remarks

and if the authorities would not have considered

the same then the grievance of the petitioner

could have been considered.

              7.               Considering            the     fact        that         the




                                              
              petitioner           did   not   represent     to    the      authority

with regard to the adverse remarks which were

served upon him for more than one year, it would

not be possible to accept the contention of the

petitioner.

8. Considering above, the Writ Petition is

disposed of. Rule discharged. No costs.

(K.L.WADANE,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

asp/office/wp116907