Bombay High Court
Shrawan S/O Gomaji Lengure vs Governement Of Maharashtra, ... on 6 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
0606WP4128.11-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4128 OF 2011
PETITIONER :- Shrawan S/o Gomaji Lengure, Aged about
68 years, Occ. Retired, Government Servant,
R/o Gadgebabanagar, Behind Swakat Lodge,
Bramhapuri, District-Chandrapur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. Government of Maharashtra, Revenue and
Forest Department Mantralaya Mumbai-32.
Through its Secretary.
2. The Collector, Chandrapur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Meenaxi Iyer, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.K.L.Dharmadhikari, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 06.06.2017
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of
the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur dated 18/06/2003
dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a chairman in District
Assistance Rehabilitation Office, Chandrapur on 25/03/1965. The
services of the petitioner were confirmed in the year 1975 and since his
0606WP4128.11-Judgment 2/4
services were no longer required in the District Assistance and
Rehabilitation Office, he was absorbed in the office of the Collector,
Nagpur as a sepoy. The petitioner claimed time bound promotion and
since it was not granted to him, he filed the original application before
the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. In the absence of the counsel
for the petitioner, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed
the original application filed by the petitioner on merits, by the
impugned order dated 18/06/2003.
3. Ms Iyer, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted
that the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is liable to be
set aside, as the grounds for seeking the relief could not be canvassed
since the counsel for the petitioner failed to remain present before the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 18/06/2003, when the matter
was listed for hearing. It is stated that in view of the settled principle
that a client should not suffer for the mistake of his counsel, an
opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to present his matter
before the tribunal. It is submitted that a remand of the matter would
be necessary, specially when the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
has dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner while
allowing the original applications filed by the other similarly situated
employees that were also absorbed in the departments of the
government. It is submitted that grave and irreparable loss would be
0606WP4128.11-Judgment 3/4
caused to the petitioner if the matter is not remanded to the tribunal for
a fresh decision on the same on merits. It is submitted that when the
other similarly situated employees have received the benefit of time
bound promotion in view of the orders passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal in similar matters, the petitioner cannot be
singled out.
4. Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, has supported the
order of the tribunal. It is submitted that since the counsel for the
petitioner had remained absent, there was no other alternative for the
tribunal but to hear the matter and decide the same in the absence of
the counsel. It is submitted that the tribunal has relied on the relevant
government resolution to dismiss the original application filed by the
petitioner.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the impugned order, it appears that an opportunity needs to
be granted to the petitioner to present the submissions before the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on the basis of the grounds raised
in the original application. Unfortunately the counsel for the petitioner
remained absent before the tribunal on 18/06/2003 and the original
application was decided without hearing the counsel for the petitioner.
0606WP4128.11-Judgment 4/4
It is rightly submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a client should not
be made to suffer for the mistake of his counsel. Also, since it is the
case of the petitioner that similarly situated employees were granted the
relief after their original applications were allowed, it would be
necessary to grant an opportunity to the petitioner. The question
whether similarly situated employees were granted the relief or not
could be decided by the tribunal, along with the other issues after the
remand. Hence, in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of
justice, it would be necessary to quash and set aside the order of the
tribunal and remand the matter to the tribunal for a fresh decision, on
merits, in accordance with law.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is
remanded to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur for a
fresh decision on the original application, in accordance with law. The
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is requested to decide the original
application as early as possible, as the matter is old and the petitioner is
a senior citizen. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
