Shri. Kusha Gangaram Sarang vs The Government Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5668 Bom

                                 * 1/5 *   7-WP-7353-2017.doc

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     WRIT PETITION NO.7353 OF 2017


Shri Kusha Gangaram Sarang
Age: 65 Years, Occ: Retired,
R/o. C/o. Vijay Gangaram Sarang,
Jayganga Swapna Nagari,
Balawadi Kulgaon (W),
Tal: Ambernath,
Dist: Thane                                 ......Petitioner

         Versus

1 The Government of Maharashtra
Through Additional Chief
Secretary, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.

2 Director General of Police,
Maharashtra State, Old Council
Hall, Colaba, Mumbai

3 Commissioner of Police,
Thane, District: Thane.

4 Superintendent of Police,
Thane, District: Thane                      .......Respondents


Mr. Abhijit S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Vishal Thadani, AGP for Respondent-State.


                          CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, &
                                  SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

                          DATE    : AUGUST 4, 2017.




                                                                     Shivgan



                                  * 2/5 *         7-WP-7353-2017.doc

ORAL JUDGMENT: [Per Smt. V.K.Tahilramani, J.]

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With

consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is

taken up for final hearing immediately.

2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned AGP for the State.

3 This petition has been preferred against the

order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (In short

'Tribunal') dated 20.1.2017 passed in the Original

Application No.409 of 2016 preferred by the petitioner. By

the said order, the Tribunal dismissed the said Original

Application wherein the petitioner had prayed that period

from "27.12.1978 to 6.7.1989" be treated as period spent

on duty with consequential service benefits.

4 The petitioner was appointed as Police

Constable (P.C.) in the year 1970. FIR came to be lodged

against him under Section 161 of IPC and Section 5(d) of

Shivgan

* 3/5 * 7-WP-7353-2017.doc

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1981. Hence, the

petitioner was proceeded against departmentally and after

completion of disciplinary enquiry, he was removed from

service on 27.12.1978. The petitioner preferred appeal

against the said order which came to be dismissed.

Thereafter, by some kind of a mercy order, he came to be

reappointed on 6.7.1989. It is specifically mentioned in the

order of reappointment that EX-P.C.,i.e, the petitioner was

being appointed afresh on the given pay-scale. The

Marathi words used were "uO;kua "uO;kuas use.kwd" that is fresh

appointment. On this fresh appointment, the petitioner

continued to serve and retired on superannuation on

31.1.2009 as P.C.

5 The petitioner started making request for

treating his earlier period, I.e, period from 1978 to 1989 to

be treated as period spent on duty. In this regard, he made

written representation on 21.8.1999, which was expressly

rejected by the Government by its communication dated

1.6.2000. Thereafter, post-retirement, the petitioner

preferred another representation, which was rejected in the

Shivgan

* 4/5 * 7-WP-7353-2017.doc

year 2015. As it was rejected, the petitioner approached

the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed Original Application

No.409 of 2016 preferred by the petitioner observing that

the O.A. is barred by limitation. Moreover, there was no

prayer moved for condonation of delay.

6 The fate of the petitioner was sealed in the year

2000 itself when his representation was rejected by the

Government on 1.6.2000 and the Original Application was

preferred in the year 2016. In this view of the matter, the

Original Application No.409 of 2016 was clearly barred by

limitation. Moreover, it is noticed that the petitioner was

removed from service pursuant to disciplinary proceedings

and his second appointment was only mercy appointment;

that too it was fresh appointment. The Tribunal took all

these facts into consideration and thereafter, dismissed the

Original Application. Looking to the above facts, no case is

made out for interference.

                                                                      Shivgan



                                * 5/5 *         7-WP-7353-2017.doc



7                Rule is discharged.



(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J)                   (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J)




                                                                         Shivgan