Bombay High Court
Ashok S/O Shankarrao Nimje vs General Manager, Forest ... on 26 February, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1/3 2602WP4115.15-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4115 OF 2015
PETITIONER :- Ashok s/o Shankarrao Nimje, Aged about 51
yrs., Occ. Service, R/o Kashikar Layout,
Marotibhau Samdhi Road, Near New Water
Tank, Wardha.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) General Manager, Forest Development
ig Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (FDCM),
Nagpur Region, Gaddigodam Chowk, Mohan
Nagar, Kamptee Road, Nagpur.
2) Managing Director, Forest Development
Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (FDCM),
Rawal Plaza, Kamptee Road, Nagpur.
3) Divisional Manager, Forest Development
Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (FDCM),
Forest Project Division, Ambazari, Hingna
Road, Near G.H.Raisoni Vidyaniketan,
Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.R.Narnaware, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. A.M.Sudame, counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATED : 26.02.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is
heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2/3 2602WP4115.15-Judgment
2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order of the
respondent No.3-Divisional Manager, Forest Development Corporation
of Maharashtra Ltd., Nagpur dated 13/11/2014 cancelling the time
bound promotion granted to the petitioner and directing the recovery of
the excess amount paid to the petitioner in pursuance of the grant of
time bound promotion.
3.
Shri Narnaware, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
states that the petitioner is aggrieved only by a part of the impugned
order. It is stated that the petitioner is not aggrieved by the cancellation
of his time bound promotion, but is aggrieved by the recovery of the
excess amount that is mistakenly paid to the petitioner in view of the
grant of time bound promotion. It is stated that the issue involved in
this case was also involved in Writ Petition No.5927 of 2015 and this
Court has, in almost identical set of facts allowed the writ petition in
respect of the challenge to the recovery by the judgment dated
25/02/2016. It is stated that by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq
Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, this
Court has quashed the order pertaining to the recovery.
4. Shri Sudame, the learned counsel for the respondents,
does not dispute the statements made on behalf of the petitioner. It is
3/3 2602WP4115.15-Judgment
not disputed that in almost identical set of facts, this court has allowed
Writ Petition No.5927 of 2015 by the judgment dated 25/02/2016.
5. Hence, for the reasons recorded in the judgment dated
25/02/2016 in Writ Petition No.5927 of 2015, this writ petition is partly
allowed. The impugned order, so far as it directs the recovery of the
excess amount paid to the petitioner, is quashed and set aside.
as to costs.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
