Sopan Dadaba Misal vs Ahmednagar Municipal ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 960 Bom

                                              1




                                                                                  
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                          
                             WRIT PETITION NO.10808 OF 2014

    Sopan Dadaba Misal,
    Age-60 years, Occu-Retired,




                                                         
    R/o Kolhar (Kolhubaiche)
    Taluka Pathardi, Dist.Ahmednagar                                  PETITIONER
    VERSUS 




                                             
    Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation,
    Ahmednagar through its Commissioner                               RESPONDENT

Mr.P.V.Barde, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.V.S.Bedre, Advocate for the respondent.

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

DATE : 29/03/2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated

10/01/2014 delivered by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, by which

Complaint (ULP) No.63/2012 filed by him has been dismissed.

3. I have heard the learned Advocates for quite some time.

Considering the issue involved in the matter, I am not required to advert

to their entire contentions.

khs/March 2016/10808-d

4. There is no dispute as regards the tenure of employment of the

petitioner. By a Government Resolution dated 20/07/2001, the State

Government has introduced the "Assured Career Progress Scheme".

Certain conditions which are required to be fulfilled for being eligible for

the Scheme are set out in the GR dated 20/07/2001. One of the

essential conditions is that the employee must have completed 12 years

of continued service. So also, the other two conditions are with regard

to an employee belonging to a particular category and having acquired

the MSCIT qualification.

5. By the GR dated 02/09/2003, the State Government has

introduced a condition by which an in-service employee who has

completed 50 years of age would be exempted from being MSCIT

qualified. In effect, the earlier age criteria of 55 years so as to exempt an

employee has been altered and by the GR dated 02/09/2003, the

condition of age has been lowered to 50 years. There is no dispute that

the petitioner has not acquired MSCIT qualification and has crossed 50

years of age.

6. The Industrial Court, while considering Complaint (ULP) No.

63/2012, has concluded that the petitioner has put forth a belated

claim and hence the complaint deserves to be rejected. It is apparent

that though the Industrial Court took cognizance of the date of birth of

khs/March 2016/10808-d

the petitioner which is 07/06/1954, it concluded that the benefits of the

scheme were available after he had put in 12 years of service and since

he had made a claim belatedly, the complaint was not tenable. The

Industrial Court also concluded that since the petitioner was not MSCIT

qualified, there was no merit in the complaint.

7. Considering the submissions of the learned Advocates and the

Government Resolutions applicable, it is quite evident that the

Industrial Court has misdirected itself. Even if the petitioner had put

forth several prayers in his complaint, it was for the Industrial Court to

scrutinize his claim in the light of the Government Resolutions and the

conditions set out therein.

8. In my view, the benefits of the scheme were available to an

employee immediately after completing 12 consecutive years of service

provided his confidential report did not reflect any stigma and provided

he was MSCIT qualified. The MSCIT qualification appears to be the

salient condition in the said scheme. The GR dated 02/09/2003,

having lowered the age limit to 50 years of age for exemption from

MSCIT, naturally entitled the petitioner to claim the benefit of the

scheme after completing 50 years of age in view of the fact that he was

not MSCIT qualified. This aspect has been lost sight of by the Industrial

Court.

khs/March 2016/10808-d

9. The learned Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Bhaskar

Amrut Ghodke Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, has delivered

its judgment dated 28/02/2014 in WP No.5786/2013. The present

respondent was respondent No.2 in the said petition. The learned

Division Bench has concluded that a candidate who did not possess the

qualification of MSCIT, would be exempted from the said condition after

attaining the age of 50 years and hence would be entitled for the

benefits of the scheme after being eligible for exemption.

10. In the light of the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned

judgment and order dated 10/01/2014 is quashed and set aside. The

petitioner would be entitled for the "Assured Career Progress Scheme" in

the light of the GR dated 20/07/2001 and the GR dated 02/09/2003

from the date he has completed 50 years of age.

11. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

khs/March 2016/10808-d