Bombay High Court
Ramesh Pandurang Mate vs State Of Mah. Thr. Its Secr. Mumbai ... on 20 September, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 4922/03 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 4922/2003
Ramesh Pandurang Mate,
Aged about: 52 years,
R/o: Katol Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary
Department of Home,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Director of Police (Wireless),
Chavan Road, Pune - 8.
3.
The Superintendent of Police (Wireless),
Katol Road, Nagpur.
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Near Ramdeobaba College,
Near M.T. Exchange, Takli, Nagpur.
5. Shri A.S. Sane,
Aged: Major,
R/o: C/o Superintendent of Police (Wireless),
Aurangabad (Rural).
6. Shri P.R. Rakshak,
Aged: major,
R/o: C/o Superintendent of Police (Rural),
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
7. Shri S.N. Naukar,
Aged: Major,
R/o: C/o Superintendent of Police,
Wireless Office, Buldana.
8. Shri H.M. More,
Aged about: Major,
R/o: C/o Supdt. Of Police (Wireless),
Dhuliya.
9. Shri D.S. Chate,
Aged: Major,
R/o: C/o Office of Commissioner of
Police, Police Wireless Office,
Nagpur. RESPONDENTS
Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri P.S. Tembhare, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:51:12 :::
WP 4922/03 2 Judgment
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 20 TH
SEPTEMBER, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order
of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur,
dated 24.06.2002 dismissing an original application filed by the
petitioner.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Workshop Assistant on
01.09.1971 and was given the rank of Head Constable Grade-2 by the
Government Resolution, dated 08.07.1975. The petitioner, therefore,
sought the pay-scale of Rs.825-1275 from 01.07.1986 and also sought the
arrears in the said pay-scale. The petitioner sought promotion with effect
from 14.07.1993 as, according to him, his juniors were promoted on the
said date. Since the prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the
respondents, the petitioner approached the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal seeking the aforesaid relief. After hearing the parties and
perusing the record, the Tribunal dismissed the original application filed
by the petitioner.
3. Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the petitioner was entitled to a higher pay-scale that was
WP 4922/03 3 Judgment
admissible to a Head Constable Grade-2 in view of the Government
Resolution, dated 08.07.1975. It is submitted that since adverse remarks
were wrongly recorded against the petitioner, the Tribunal ought to have
directed the expungement of the said remarks.
4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
has supported the order of the Tribunal. It is stated that nothing was
pointed out by the petitioner before the Tribunal to seek a higher pay-
scale. It is stated that since the Confidential Records of the petitioner
carried adverse remarks and the said were communicated to the
petitioner, the petitioner could not have been promoted when his juniors
were promoted in the year 1993. It is stated that the Tribunal has rightly
rejected both the prayers of the petitioner.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on
a perusal of the impugned order as also the documents annexed to
the petition, it appears that no case is made out by the petitioner
for interference with the order of the Tribunal. Nothing was pointed
out before the Tribunal by the petitioner to seek a higher pay-scale.
The petitioner had only relied on the Government Resolution
dated 08.07.1975 but, the Tribunal found that as per the resolution,
some of the employees were granted a rank of Head Constable Grade-2
in the interest of discipline and, therefore, the employees that were
WP 4922/03 4 Judgment
granted the rank of Head Constable Grade-2 could not have claimed the
pay-scale that was admissible to a Head Constable Grade-2, who was
holding the said post on substantive basis. The Tribunal found that the
confidential reports of the petitioner were not satisfactory and in view of
the adverse entries in the confidential reports, the petitioner could not
have been promoted when his juniors were promoted in the year 1993.
The Tribunal held that both the prayers made by the petitioner were
liable to be rejected as the petitioner had not brought anything on record
to show that he was entitled to a higher pay-scale and the petitioner was
not entitled to promotion in view of the adverse entries in the confidential
records. We do not find any fault with the impugned order so as to
interfere with the same, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
6. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no
order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
WP 4922/03 5 Judgment
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by: Rohit D. Apte. Uploaded on :21.09.2016.
