Mukesh S/O. Balwantrao Vaidya vs Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 80 Bom

    WP  3455/15                                          1                           Judgment


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                                         
                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                         WRIT PETITION No. 3455/2015




                                                                 
    Mukesh s/o. Balwantrao Vaidya,
    Aged About 50 yrs, Occupation-Service,
    R/o Lakhpati Gali, Shegaon, District Buldhana.                                PETITIONER
                                             VERSUS




                                                                
    1.            Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran,
                  4th floor, Express Towers, Nariman Point,
                  Mumbai 400 021
                  through its Members Secretary.




                                                    
    2.            Superintending Engineer,
                  Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran
                  (Urban and Rural), Nehru Chowk,
                              
                  Akola.
    3.            The Executive Engineer,
                  Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran
                             
                  (Urban and Rural Division Scheme),
                  Buldana.
    4.            The State of Maharashtra,
                  through Secretary,
                  Department of Water Supply and Sanitation,
      

                  Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.                                        RESPONDENTS
   



                       Shri P.D. Meghe, counsel  for the petitioner.
                   Shri D.M. Kakani, counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3.
          Shri N.S. Rao, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.4.

                                                  





                                       CORAM  : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND
                                                   A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

                                       DATE      :         FEBRUARY   25 ,    2016.     





    ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)


                  RULE.   Rule  is made  returnable  forthwith.    The  petition  is

heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned

counsel for the parties.

WP 3455/15 2 Judgment

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the

relief of grant of time bound promotion in the pay-scale of Junior

Engineer on the ground that the petitioner has completed twelve years of

service on 10.11.2000.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that though all necessary

requirements for being entitled for grant of time bound promotion have

been fulfilled by the petitioner, said benefit has been denied to him. On

the contrary, other junior colleagues of the petitioner have also been

granted the said benefit. It is, therefore, prayed that the relief of time

bound promotion be made available to the petitioner.

4. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 3 in

which it has been stated that before granting the benefit of time bound

promotion, the respondent nos.1 to 3 have to first verify as to whether the

petitioner has passed the qualifying examination for being entitled to the

said benefit. It has been stated that though the petitioner has been called

upon to furnish the relevant documents in that regard, the same are still

awaited and, therefore, necessary decision could not be taken.

5. In the aforesaid set of facts, we dispose of the writ petition by

passing the following order:-

     WP  3455/15                                        3                          Judgment


    I)            The   petitioner   shall   submit   all   the   relevant   documents   as




                                                                                      

demanded by the respondents to the respondent no.2, within a period of

fifteen days from today. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 shall forward

said documents to the concerned authority for taking necessary decision.

The decision on the representation that has been moved by the petitioner

shall be taken within a period of three months after the same is

forwarded by the respondent no.2 to the concerned authority.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as

to costs.

                  JUDGE                                      JUDGE

    APTE