Bombay High Court
Vidarbha Apang Vikas Sanstha, ... vs Kisan S/O Laxman Khillari And 2 ... on 6 June, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
wp4286.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR
BENCH NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4286 OF 2015
Vidarbha Apang Vikas Sanstha
Karanja Lad, Distt. Washim,
through President Wasudeo Deorao
Karde, Professor Colony, Karanja
Lad, Distt. Washim.
2] The Head Master,
Manikrao Thakre Deaf and Dumb
Residential School, Karanja Lad,
Distt. Washim. PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
1] Kisan Laxman Khillari
aged 50 yrs., Occu. Service
as Caretaker, R/o Gautam Nagar,
Karanja lad, Distt. Washim.
2] Social Welfare Officer
(Group-A) Zilla Parishad, Washim.
3] Regional Deputy Commissioner,
Social Welfare Department,
Amravati Division Amravati. RESPONDENTS.
Shri S. V. Sohoni, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri R. S. Kurekar, Advocate for the respondent No. 1.
Ms. T. Udeshi, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.3.
CORAM: A. S. CHANDURKAR J.
Dated : JUNE 06, 2016.
wp4286.15
ORAL JUDGMENT:
Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the
parties.
2] The order dated 05.06.2015 passed by the Regional Deputy
Commissioner, Social Welfare Department Amravati in proceedings
initiated by the respondent no. 1 challenging the order of termination
dated 24.11.2011 is under challenge in the present writ petition. By
the said order the petitioners have been directed to reinstate the
respondent no.1 in service along with back wages.
3] Shri S. V. Sohoni the learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Secretary, A. P. D. Jain Pathshala and others Vs. Shivaji Bhagwat
More and others reported in (2011) 13 SCC 99 the respondent no. 3
had no jurisdiction to decide the proceedings He submits that the said
issue stands concluded in view of various decisions of this Court
including the judgment in Writ Petition No. 7389 of 2014 (Mahadeo
Shriram Sarode Vs. Regional Deputy Commissioner Social Welfare
Department Anmravati and ors.) decided on 19.10.2015.
4] Shri R. S. Kurekar, the learned counsel for the respondent
no.1 submits that the respondent no.1 had rightly invoked the
jurisdiction of the respondent no.3 under the Special Code. He,
wp4286.15
however does not dispute that the legal position now stands settled in
view of the judgment referred to hereinabove. He however submits
that the respondent no.1 cannot be left without any remedy.
Ms. T. Udeshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appears for respondent no.3 and submits to the orders of the Court.
5] Perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Secretary. A.P.D. Jain (supra) indicates that it has been held that the
State Government cannot in exercise its executive powers create
Tribunals or Authorities for deciding disputes of the present nature.
The aforesaid decision has been followed by this Court in various
judgments.
6] In view of aforesaid settled position it will have to be held
that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction of the respondent no.3 to entertain the proceedings. At
the same time it will have to be held that it would be open for the
respondent no.1 to avail such suitable remedy as available in law.
7] In view of aforesaid, the following order is passed:
The order dated 05.06.2015 passed by the respondent no.3
in the appeal preferred by respondent no.1 under the Special Code is
set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
It is open for the respondent no.1 to seek redressal of his
grievances against the petitioners in accordance with law by invoking
wp4286.15
appropriate jurisdiction.
The points raised by either parties are kept open. Rule is
made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.
JUDGE
svk
