Bombay High Court
Prabhu S/O. Bhayyalal Mate vs Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur ... on 31 July, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 4741/15 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 4741/2015
Prabhu s/o Bhayyalal Mate,
Aged about 58 years, Occu.-Service (Section Officer),
resident of Takia Ward, Hanuman Nagar,
Bhandara. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. Divisional Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2. State of Maharashtra,
Department of Rural Development &
Water Conservation,
through its Principal Secretary,
Line Panchayatraj, Bandhkham Bhavan,
25, Marjabhan Pat, Fort, Mumbai-1.
3. State of Maharashtra,
Department of General Administration,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
4. Shri J.G. Jadhav,
Occupation : Service,
Additional Block Development Officer,
Nagpur Zilla Parishad, M.R.E.G.S.,
(Rojgar Hami Yojana), Nagpur.
5. Shri Sanjay Puri,
Assistant Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti Mul,
District Chandrapur.
6. Shri A.W. Akulwar,
Assistant Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti Ramtek,
Distt. Nagpur.
7. Zilla Parishad, Bhandara,
Through it's Chief Executive Officer,
Bhandara.
8. Zilla Parishad, Nagpur,
Through it's Chief Executive Officer,
Nagpur. RESPONDENTS
Mrs. U.A. Patil, Counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs. H.Prabhu, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 3.
Shri R.R. Rathod, counsel for the respondent no.4.
Shri H.N. Verma, counsel for the respondent no.7.
Shri P.Raulkar, Advocate holding for Mrs.I.L. Bodade, counsel for the respondent no.8.
::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 02:16:59 :::
WP 4741/15 2 Judgment
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.
ST
JULY, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the order
of the Divisional Commissioner, dated 20.06.2015 promoting the
respondent no.4 by superseding the petitioner. By amending the writ
petition, the petitioner had also challenged the order dated 20.11.2015,
by which the respondent nos.5 and 6 were promoted.
2. The petitioner was appointed by Zilla Parishad, Bhandara in
the year 1993. According to the petitioner, in the seniority list prepared
for the purpose of promotion of the employees, the name of the petitioner
was wrongfully placed at Serial Number 8, though the petitioner was
entitled to be placed above the placement of the respondent nos.5 and 6
in the seniority list. According to the petitioner, though the petitioner
was placed above the respondent no.4 in the seniority list, the respondent
no.4 was promoted by the impugned order dated 20.06.2015 while
denying promotion to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Block
Development Officer.
3. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that during the
pendency of the writ petition, the Divisional Commissioner has taken a
decision to modify the seniority list as far as the petitioner is concerned
and as per the modified seniority list, the petitioner is placed at Serial
WP 4741/15 3 Judgment
Number 1 as the respondent nos.5 and 6 are already promoted. It is
stated on behalf of the petitioner that by considering the placement of the
petitioner in the seniority list, a direction may be issued against the
concerned respondents to grant deemed date of promotion on the post of
Assistant Block Development Officer and further direct them to release
the monetary benefits flowing from the said order of grant of deemed
date of promotion.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute that
during the pendency of the writ petition, the seniority list has been
modified and the petitioner is placed at Serial Number 1 as per the
modified seniority list for the post of Maharashtra Development Services
(M.D.S.) Cadre-II. It is stated that an appropriate order could be passed
in pursuance of the re-fixation of the seniority of the petitioner.
5. In the circumstances of the case since the representation of
the petitioner for re-fixing the seniority list is allowed and the seniority
list is modified insofar as the petitioner is concerned, it would be
necessary to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent
nos.1, 2 and 3 to grant deemed date of promotion to the petitioner on the
basis of the seniority of the petitioner as is refixed and fix the pay of the
petitioner appropriately and also grant the pensionery benefits to the
petitioner accordingly.
WP 4741/15 4 Judgment
6. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 to grant deemed date of promotion to the
petitioner on the basis of the seniority of the petitioner as is re-fixed and
fix the pay of the petitioner appropriately and also grant the pensionery
benefits to the petitioner accordingly. The respondent no.7 should assist
the respondent nos.1 to 3 in ensuring that the deemed date of promotion
is granted to the petitioner and the pensionery benefits are released in
favour of the petitioner appropriately, at the earliest. It is needless to
mention that since the petitioner had not worked on the promotional post
of Assistant Block Development Officer, the petitioner would not be
entitled to the actual monetary benefits flowing from the order of deemed
date of promotion though the petitioner would be entitled to the arrears
of pension on the basis of the fixation of the pay in terms of the deemed
date of promotion. The entire exercise may be completed by the
respondent nos.1 to 3 within three months and the arrears of pensionery
benefits should be released in favour of the petitioner within four months.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
