Bombay High Court
Pundalik Waman Gavali vs State Of Mah & Ors on 10 August, 2017
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 wp 6622.05
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6622 OF 2005
Pundalik S/o Waman Gavali,
Age : 60 Years, Occu. : Nil,
R/o India Housing Society
Plot No. 4, Deopur, Dhule,
District Dhule. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary, Higher
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Joint Director,
Higher Education Jalgaon,
District Jalgaon.
3. The Accountant General,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
4. Shri Shivaji Vidya Prasarak
Sanstha, Dhule through its
President,
Office at Phule Bhavan,
Lane No. 6, Dhule.
5. Smt. P. B. Bagal Arts, Commerce
College, Dondiacha, Tq. Shindkheda,
District Dhule
Through its Principal. .. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:10:31 :::
2 wp 6622.05
Shri S. P. Brahme, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Smt. A. V. Gondhalekar, Addl.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Shri Govind Kulkarni, Advocate h/f Shri Rajendra S. Deshmukh,
Advocate for the Respondent No. 5.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 10TH AUGUST, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-
. The learned counsel submits that, the petitioner is now
getting pension. The only grievance in the present writ petition
now is to the extent of deemed date of promotion and pay fixation
qua the deemed date of promotion.
2. Mr. Brahme, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that, the petitioner from time to time was denied promotion. The
petitioner approached the Grievance Committee. The Grievance
Committee and the Management Council after hearing all the
parties took the decision and directed deemed date of promotion
to be granted. The management implemented said order and
granted deemed date of promotion that of a senior clerk with
effect from _________, head clerk with effect from 01.07.2006 and
Office superintendent with effect from 01.04.2002, however, pay
fixation has not been done considering the post of the petitioner
that of office superintendent.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that,
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 02:10:31 :::
3 wp 6622.05
as per the staffing pattern the post of office superintendent is not
admissible. Even the proposal is not submitted by the
institution.
4. The proposal dated 26.06.2008 as referred to by the learned
counsel for the petitioner to suggest that, said proposal is
forwarded to the Deputy Director of Higher Education, Jalgaon
Division.
5. It does not appear that, there is any dispute that the
petitioner has been granted deemed date of promotion as senior
clerk with effect from 01.07.1997, head clerk with effect from
01.07.2000. The only dispute is with respect of date of promotion
on the post of office superintendent.
6. We do not find anything on record to conclude as to the
availability of the post of office superintendent with the
respondent No. 5 at the relevant time or that no other candidate
was appointed as office superintendent upon retirement of one
Mr. Joshi.
7. In the circumstances, we pass following order.
O R D E R
A. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 shall forward the proposal of
4 wp 6622.05
the petitioner for pay fixation for the post of office
superintendent as per order of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 dated
31.03.2002 to the respondent authority.
B. The respondent authority after considering eligibility of
the said post, take decision upon the same within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of said proposal.
C. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 shall forward the said
proposal within a period of six (06) weeks from today.
D. In case the respondent authority comes to the conclusion
that the petitioner was entitled to the post of office
superintendent, then his pay fixations hall be done accordingly
and monetary benefits including pensionary benefits be
accordingly released.
E. Rule accordingly is made absolute in above terms. No
costs.
[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
bsb/Aug. 17
