Bombay High Court
The Chief Executive Officer, The ... vs Faiz Ahemad Basir Ahemad on 14 December, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 903.wp.8381.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8381 OF 2014
The Chief Executive Officer,
The Zilla Parishad, Latur.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1 Faiz Ahemad Basir Ahemad,
Age : 59 years,
Occupation : Retired Sectional Engineer,
Works, Zilla Parishad, Latur.
Sub Division, Nilanga,
District Latur.
At present Maulana Abdul
Kalam Azad Chowk, Ausa,
District Latur.
2 The Additional Divisional Commissioner,
Division, Aurangabad.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Tandale P.R.
Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Shri Ajinkya Kale h/f Talekar &
Associates.
AGP for Respondent 2 : Shri N.T.Bhagat.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 14th December, 2016
Oral Judgment :
1 Leave to add the Additional Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad as Respondent No.2. Addition be carried out forthwith. The
*2* 903.wp.8381.14
learned AGP waives service for the added Respondent No.2.
2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
3 I had heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at
length on 13.12.2016. With their assistance, I have gone through the
impugned order dated 05.04.2014 which has been passed on the Appeal
No.79/2014 filed by Respondent No.1/ Employee.
4 I noticed that eight different orders have been challenged by
Respondent No.1/ Employee in a single appeal. None of the impugned
orders in the said appeal can be said to be interconnected to each other. I
further found that Respondent No.2/ Additional Divisional Commissioner,
while passing the order on the eight causes of action, has failed to
consider each of them and has delivered the impugned order which does
not bear proper reasons. In my view, the impugned order on account of
perversity and deficiencies, is unsustainable.
5 Respondent No.1/ Employee has, therefore, stated that he
would challenge each of those eight orders through separate appeals
alongwith delay condonation applications. The learned Advocate for
*3* 903.wp.8381.14
Respondent No.1 had sought time to tender an affidavit.
6 An affidavit has been tendered today at page 79 of the
petition paper book. Respondent No.1/ Employee expressed his desire to
challenge each of those eight orders by preferring an appeal under Rule
13 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1964.
In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed.
The impugned order dated 21.06.2014 passed by Respondent No.2 is
quashed and set aside. Respondent No.1/ Employee is at liberty to
challenge each of the 08 orders as had been put forth in his appeal dated
05.04.2014 bearing No.79/2014. He shall, therefore, be permitted to file
an individual appeal against each of the said orders. He would also be at
liberty to file an application for condonation of delay, if any and the time
spent by Respondent No.1/ Employee from 05.04.2014 in this litigation
till the passing of this order, shall be a good ground for condonation of
delay.
8 Considering the fact that Respondent No.1/ Employee has
already retired, in the event, he prefers his proceedings in accordance with
the liberty granted as above within a period of FOUR WEEKS from today,
*4* 903.wp.8381.14
Respondent No.2 shall endeavour to decide the said proceedings as
expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of NINETY (90)
DAYS from the date of first hearing. In the event, there is no legal
impediment, the appropriate authorities may take a decision as regards his
retiral and pensionery benefits. In the event, the said benefits are subject
to the result of any of the causes of action involved, the same shall be
subject to the result of the appeals filed by Respondent No.1.
Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
