Anwarkhan Gulabkhan Pathan vs Divisional Controller, Msrtc, ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 5842 Bom

                                                     *1*                         901.wp.8586.15


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                                   
                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 8586 OF 2015




                                                           
    Anwarkhan Gulabkhan Pathan,
    Age : 65 years, Occupation : At present Nil,
    R/o Old Bus Depot, Khaja Naga,




                                                          
    Galli No.29, Osmanabad,
    Taluka and District Osmanabad.
                                                      ...PETITIONER

              -VERSUS-




                                               
    The Divisional Controller,       
    MSRTC, Near Ambedkar Statute,
    Osmanabad, District Osmanabad.
                                                      ...RESPONDENT
                                    
                                            ...
                    Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Patil Vinod Prakash.
       

                Advocate for Respondent : Shri R.N.Jain h/f Shri D.S.Bagul.
                                            ...
    



                                           CORAM:  RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATE :- 04th October, 2016

Oral Judgment :

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

consent of the parties.

2 The Petitioner/ Employee is aggrieved by the judgment of the

Industrial Court dated 23.02.2015 by which Complaint (ULP)

*2* 901.wp.8586.15

No.125/2012 has been dismissed.

3 I have considered the strenuous submissions of Shri Patil,

learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Shri Jain, learned Advocate for the

Respondent/ MSRTC.

4 Though the Industrial Court has delivered a detailed

judgment, I find that the complaint has been primarily dismissed on the

ground of delay. There is no dispute that the increment payable to the

Petitioner while in service was Rs.32/-. He retired on 30.04.2009.

Thereafter, when he went through his service book and assessed his

earnings, he realized that the Respondent/ MSRTC had erroneously

stopped 04 increments instead of 03 as punishment imposed by the order

of punishment dated 27.03.1997. Stoppage of 04 increments instead of

03, pursuant to the order of punishment, led to the Petitioner suffering

loss of payment of Rs.32/- on month to month basis till he retired.

Pursuant to his retirement, a shortfall of Rs.32/- had an effect on the

calculation of his pension. In my view, this, therefore, was a recurring

cause of action and the Industrial Court should have entertained the

complaint.

    5               There   is   no   dispute   that   the   Petitioner   suffered   the 





                                                      *3*                           901.wp.8586.15

punishment of permanent stoppage of 03 increments vide order dated

27.03.1997 and has accepted the same. For the assistance of the Court,

the Petitioner has placed on record three pages of his service book and the

fourth page is a copy of his order of punishment. The said compilation is

collectively marked as Exhibit X for identification.

6 The first page of Exhibit X indicates that with an increment

earned by the Petitioner, took his pay in substantive appointment to

Rs.1502/- as on 02.11.1994. By subsequent additions, he reached

Rs.1662/- as on 24.01.1996. The second page of Exhibit X indicates that

the order of punishment dated 27.03.1997 was implemented on

03.04.1997. The pay in substantive appointment of the Petitioner would

have reached Rs.1694/- as on 03.04.1997. Due to stoppage of 03

increments of Rs.32/- each, the said amount of Rs.1694/- had to be

reduced by Rs.96/- thereby, bringing his pay in substantive appointment

to Rs.1598/-. Since the fourth increment of Rs.32/- was deducted, the

amount came to Rs.1566/- on 03.04.1997. It is, therefore, apparent that

instead of deducting 03 increments, the Respondent/ MSRTC has

deducted 04 increments while imposing the punishment dated

27.03.1997.

7 In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed.

*4* 901.wp.8586.15

The impugned judgment of the Industrial Court is quashed and set aside.

Complaint (ULP) No.125/2012 is partly allowed by directing the

Respondent/ MSRTC to consider the observations of this Court set out

herein above and accordingly, recalculate the dues (the fourth increment

inadvertently deducted) and make the said payment within a period of

TWELVE WEEKS from today to the Petitioner. Similarly, the pensionary

benefits of the Petitioner shall be recalculated in the light of the above.

The Respondent/ MSRTC is expected to ensure that his pensionary

benefits are revised within a period of FIVE MONTHS from today.

8 Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

    kps                                                     (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)