Bombay High Court
Dr. Gajanan Digambar Anjankar vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 28 March, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp207.15 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 207 OF 2015
Dr. Gajanan Digambar Anjankar,
aged 56 years, r/o Tilak Chowk,
Washim, Tahsil and District -
Washim. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary,
Agriculture Animal Husbandry
Dairy Development and Fisheries
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032.
2. The Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry Directorate,
Central Building, Pune.
3. The Regional Joint Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry, Nagpur Region,
Nagpur, in front of Maharajbag,
Nagpur.
4. The District Animal Husbandry
Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli,
Tq. and District - Gadchiroli. ... RESPONDENTS
Mrs. R.S. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri D.M. Kale, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
MARCH 28, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard
finally with the consent of Mrs. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Shri Kale, learned AGP for respondent Nos.
1 to 3 at length.
2.
The effort of Mrs. Sirpurkar, learned counsel is to
demonstrate that the communication of rejection of request to
retire voluntarily allegedly dated 05.01.2005 is ante-dated.
She is relying upon an express ground raised before us vide
Ground No. II at page 13 of the petition. She is also inviting
our attention to relevant records to urge that had there been
rejection on 05.01.2005 itself, such correspondence or
communication could not have taken place. The support is
being taken from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. S.K. Singhal, reported at
(1999) 4 SCC 293.
3. The learned AGP submits that before the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, there was no such
specific contention. In the absence of such contention and a
specific challenge that the communication is ante dated, the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has correctly relied upon
the date 05.01.2005 as the date of rejection and applied its
mind. He also placed reliance upon the express language of
Rule 66 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982,
to urge that the scheme of said Rule has been properly looked
into by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
4. Though before the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal there was no express contention that the
communication of acceptance purportedly dated 05.01.2005
was ante-dated, by relying upon the other material on record,
the petitioner was attempting to demonstrate the same before
the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, in an effort to urge
that till expiry of 90 days, there was no decision to refuse the
permission. After rejection by Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, the said contention has been put forth expressly in
writ petition as a ground. We are, therefore, not satisfied with
the submission of the learned AGP that before the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, there was no such attempt.
5. In the light of material brought on record, we find
that the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal should have first
considered whether date 05.01.2005 put on the
communication of rejection is correct or not. Without
recording a finding in this respect, there could not have been
further application of mind.
6. However, in order to avoid further complication,
we grant the petitioner leave to raise said contention expressly
by adding appropriate challenges before the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal. If such challenges are raised, the
respondents also can in that event file appropriate documents
to meet it.
7. As the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has
not considered the challenge before it suitably, we quash and
set aside the order dated 03.11.2014 in Original Application
(O.A.) No. 95 of 2005. The O.A. is restored back to the file of
the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur, for taking
fresh decision in accordance with law in the light of
observations made above.
8. The parties to appear before the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur, on 14.06.2016 and to abide
by its further instructions in the matter.
9. Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed and
disposed of. Rule is made absolute in above terms. However,
in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
