Bombay High Court
Gajanan Ramchandra Rahamatkar vs The State Of Mah.Education ... on 6 May, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp6622.05
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 6622 OF 2005.
Gajanan s/o Ramchandra Rahamatkar,
Aged about 59 years,
Occupation - Nil, resident
of Near T.V. Centre, Gondia,
Tahsil and District Gondia.
ig ....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
Education Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
through its Secretary.
2. The Director of Education,
Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Pune.
3. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
4. The Education Officer
Zilla Parishad, Gondia
5. The Regional Director of Municipal
Administration, Office of Divisional
Commissioner, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
6. Municipal Council, Gondia,
through its Chief Officer. ....RESPONDENTS
.
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 01:08:50 :::
Judgment wp6622.05
2
-----------------------------------
None for Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 4 and 5
Mr. A.V.Palshikar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. A. Parihar, Advocate for Respondent No.6.
------------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
& P.N. DESHMUKH , JJ.
DATED : MAY 06, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
After hearing learned Assistant Government Pleader for
respondent State, we find that the controversy is squarely covered by the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab .vrs.
Rafique Masih (White Washer) (2014) 8 SCC 883), hence, we have taken
up the matter for hearing, though nobody is present for petitioner.
2. Petitioner came to be promoted vide order dated 01.12.1990,
issued by the respondent no.6 Municipal Council from the pay scale of Rs.
1200-2040 to pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600. He was found entitled to up-
gradation against 25% quota meant for trained graduates. On 12.09.1962,
Judgment wp6622.05
the Education Officer (respondent no.4), granted approval to this placement
and pay scale. It has been set aside on 04.09.2004 by the respondent no.3
Deputy Director only on the ground that the approval was accorded 11 years
later and that too with retrospective effect.
3. Learned A.G.P. is relying upon the submissions filed by the
respondent nos. 1 to 3 to support the impugned action. Separate
submissions are filed by respondent no.4. We have perused the submissions
filed by respondent nos. 1 to 3, particularly paragraph no.7. Except for the
fact that approval give is belated, no other reason is being assigned for
setting aside the order of approval. The respondent no.3 has not extended
any opportunity of hearing either to the petitioner or to his employer. There
is no finding that the petitioner never worked against 25% quota graduate
post.
4. In this situation, when for work done and pay scale applicable to
it, approval is being given after 11 years, that by itself is not sufficient to
warrant withdrawal thereof. Impugned order dated 04.09.2004 is therefore,
liable to be quashed and set aside.
5. There is one more facet to this controversy. The petitioner
Judgment wp6622.05
reached his age of superannuation on 31.07.2004 and impugned order has
been passed two months thereafter i.e. 0n 04.09.2004. Recovery for alleged
excess payment is also ordered. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
paragraph no.12 of the judgment supra, particularly clause [i] and [ii]
therein, even on that count the impugned action is unsustainable.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.09.2004 is quashed and
set aside. Writ Petition is partly allowed, by making Rule absolute in the
aforesaid terms. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
