Bombay High Court
Parag Durwas Nagrale vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 14 June, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 140616 wp 615.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.615 of 2015
Parag Durwas Nagrale,
Aged about 48 years, Occ.-Service,
R/o.-255, HB Estate, Khamla Road,
Sonegaon, Nagpur. .... Petitioner.
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
through its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2] The Divisional Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, Old Secretariat Building,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3] The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Civil Lines, Nagpur. .... Respondents.
Shri M.M. Sudame, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Majid Sheikh, Advocate for resp.no.3.
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Addl.GP for resp.nos. 1 and 2.
Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari &
Kum. I.K. Jain, JJ.
Dated : 14 th June, 2016.
2 140616 wp 615.15.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT [Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.]
The matter is already admitted for final hearing. Civil
Application No.1165 of 2016 is taken out by the petitioner for
directions.
2] The petitioner earlier working as a Assistant Engineer
Grade-II in Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal has been transferred to Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur as per the orders of respondent no.3 dated
14-07-2003. The said order is issued after approval of the State
Government dated 30-06-2003. It appears that one R.S. Labhane
working on the same post with Zilla Parishad, Nagpur has been
shifted to Yavatmal Zilla Parishad on his post.
3] The short grievance of the petitioner is that in view of the
provisions of Rules 6(8)(ii) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads
District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 [for short 'the Rules,
1967'], the seniority of the petitioner in Zilla Parishad, Nagpur
should be fixed by respondent no.3 and if the petitioner's seniority
at Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal is found lower than that of Shri
Labhane, the petitioner be given that lower seniority in Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur.
3 140616 wp 615.15.odt
4] The learned Additional Government Pleader as also learned
Advocate Shri Sheikh for respondent no.3 state that the Writ
Petition is already admitted for final hearing on 10-02-2016 and
they are seeking time to obtain instructions from their respective
clients.
5] We find that the provisions of Rule 6(8)(ii) of the Rules,
1967 are very clear. As per the said rule, in case of such
appointment on mutual request and exchange, the person appointed
shall retain his seniority of the former Zilla Parishad or take the
seniority of the Zilla Parishad servant with whom he has been
exchanged, whichever of the two shall be lower. However, sub-rule
(iii) specifies how seniority is fixed in later Zilla Parishad if
appointment to later Zilla Parishad is on request.
6] In this situation, we find that no purpose will be served by
keeping the petition pending. Hence, without prejudice to the rival
contentions of the parties and without observing anything on merits
of the controversy, we direct the respondent no.3 to look into the
provisions of Rule 6(8)(ii) of the Rules, 1967 and decide the
controversy of seniority of the petitioner in accordance with law
within a period of 10 weeks from today. If necessary, the
opportunity of hearing shall be extended to the petitioner.
4 140616 wp 615.15.odt
7] With these directions, the Writ Petition is partly allowed and
disposed of by making rule absolute accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Deshmukh
