Bombay High Court
Khushal Wamanrao Haral vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 19 April, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
1 WP.14313/2016(3)
mnm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 14313 OF 2016
Khushal Wamanrao Haral ...Petitioner
Age 44 years,
Formerly working as Sectional Engineer
in the Office of Secretary, Licensing Board,
3rd floor, Administrative Building,
Chembur, Mumbai-400071.
R/o. B/76/4, Government Colony,
Bandra(E), Mumbai-400 051.
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
(Energy), Industries, Energy &
Labour Department, Mantralaya
Mumbai.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
Holding charge of Chief Electrical
Inspector, Inspection Circle,
Chembur, Mumbai.
3. The Electrical Inspector
Secretary, Licensing Board,
Having office at 3rd floor,
Administrative Building,
Chembur, Mumbai-400 071. ...Respondents
Mr. Pradeep J. Thorat, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. N.C. Walimbe, A.G.P. for the State
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:54:32 :::
2 WP.14313/2016(3)
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, &
M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
DATED :19TH APRIL, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned
A.G.P. for the Respondents.
2. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable
forthwith and the matter is heard finally.
3. This Petition has been preferred against the order dated 25 th
November 2016 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
Mumbai Bench, Mumbai in the Original Application No. 647 of
2016 preferred by the Petitioner, which came to be dismissed.
4. In the OA the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 30 th
April, 2016 issued by the Respondent No.1 by which he was
absorbed in P.W.D. (Electrical) Wing. The prayer of the Petitioner in
the OA was that he be continued to be retained in the Energy
3 WP.14313/2016(3)
Department and absorbed as per option given by him and he be
granted all the consequential service benefits.
5. The Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer in
the year 1998. He was promoted as Sectional Engineer in 2004.
Electrical Inspectorate was earlier working under the Public Work
Department. In 2015 it was decided to bifurcate the Inspectorate
and the Electrical Inspectorate was brought under the
administrative control of Energy Department and P.W.D. (Electrical)
Wing continued to be with P.W.D. By G.R. dated 24 th April, 2015 it
was decided to give opportunity to the employees either to remain
in Electrical Inspectorate or to shift to P.W.D. The employees were
required to give options till 20th May 2015.
6. The Petitioner was working in Electrical Inspectorate. In view
of the G.R. dated 24th April 2015, by letter dated 7 th May 2015 the
Chief Electrical Inspector asked employees to give their options
either to remain in Electrical Inspectorate or to shift to P.W.D. The
employees were required to give options till 20th May 2015. By
letter dated 19th May 2015 it was clarified that if no option was
4 WP.14313/2016(3)
given by them, it was to be presumed that the employee wished to
remain in Energy Department. The Petitioner gave his option to be
absorbed in P.W.D. on 26th February 2016. However, on 8th March,
2016 the Petitioner changed his option and opted to remain in
Energy Department. By order dated 30th April 2016 the option of
the Petitioner opting to remain in Energy Department was rejected.
Being aggrieved thereby he preferred the abovementioned O.A.
7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that if the
Petitioner remains in P.W.D. he will have no chances of promotion.
The Petitioner is from NT category and in P.W.D. Department the
quota for NT is full, hence the Petitioner would not get any benefit.
He further submitted that this rejection was against the policy of
the Government to absorb an employee in a department of his
choice.
8. The learned A.G.P. submitted that a Coordination Committee
was formed to decide about migration of employees from Energy
Department to P.W.D. after 20 th May 2015. The Petitioner had
decided to migrate to P.W.D. by his option form dated 26 th February
5 WP.14313/2016(3)
2016. In the meeting of Officers of Energy Department and P.W.D.
held on 5th March, 2016 it was decided to finalize inter
departmental transfers as per options received till the date of
meeting i.e. 5th March 2016. On 5th March 2016 the Petitioner's
option dated 26th February 2016 was before the Committee. The
revised option dated 8th March, 2016 was obviously not before the
Committee, hence the revised option was not considered. As the
Committee considered all the options received till 5th March 2016
and on that date, only the Petitioner's earlier option dated 26 th
February, 2016 was before the Committee it was considered and
allowed. In the said meeting it was decided to consider only
options received up to 5 th March, 2016. Thereafter the G.R. dated
30th April 2016 was issued on the basis of the decision taken by the
Committee on 5th March 2016.
9. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner had given his option
to migrate to P.W.D. on 26th February 2016. It is also a fact that he
had given revised option on 8th March 2016 to remain in Energy
Department. According to the Petitioner his latest option dated 8 th
March, 2016 should have been accepted by the Respondents. As far
6 WP.14313/2016(3)
as this contention is concerned the interdepartmental meeting of
Officers of Energy Department and P.W.D. was held on 5 th March
2016 wherein it was decided to finalize the staff transfers on the
basis of options given up to 5th March 2016. It was decided therein
to consider options received only up to 5 th March 2016. The
process of interdepartmental adjustment has to come to a finality
and cannot continue indefinitely. It is inevitable that when the cut-
off date was fixed, which was 5th March 2016 the Petitioner cannot
insist that his revised option must be accepted. The Tribunal has
taken into account all these contentions and in our opinion rightly
dismissed the OA. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere in the
order.
10. However, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted
that at present the posts of NT candidates are vacant in the Energy
Department. Whereas in the P.W.D. department at present there are
no posts available for candidate from NT category and hence, the
Petitioner cannot get any benefit of being a NT category candidate.
It would be open to the Petitioner to make a representation to the
Competent Authority that his case may be considered for placing
7 WP.14313/2016(3)
him in the Electrical Department. If such a representation is
preferred, the same be decided as expeditiously as possible. The
Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
11. Rule is discharged in the above terms.
(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)
