Ku. Bulbul D/O Adhirkumar Roy vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3219 Bom

                                                        1                   J-WP-6303-13.odt

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 6303 OF 2013

 Ku. Bulbul d/o Adhirkumar Roy,
 Aged about : 43 years,
 Occ. Service, R/o Sahyog-II,
 Patbandhare Vasahat,
 Opp. Subhash Garden,
 Nehru Chowk, Gondia,
 Tah. and Distt. Gondia.                                          ..... PETITIONER

                                 ...V E R S U S...

 1. State of Maharashtra,
    Through its Secretary,
    Irrigation Department,
    Mantralaya,
    Mumbai - 400 032.

 2. Superintending Engineer,
    Minor Irrigation (Local Sector),
    Circle, Nagpur Office at
    Vainganga Nagar, Ajani,
    Nagpur.

 3. Executive Engineer,
    Minor Irrigation (Local Sector),
    Division, Gondia,
    Office at Govindpur Road,
    Gondia, Tah. and Distt.Gondia.

 4. Member,
      Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,
      Mumbai, Bench at Nagpur,
      Civil Lines, Nagpur.                                        ... RESPONDENTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri I. N. Choudhari, Advocate for the petitioner.
 Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to  3.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CORAM:-    
                                             SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK &
                                                 ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.

DATED :-

15/06/2017.

2 J-WP-6303-13.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order

of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 19 th November, 2013

dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner.

The father of the petitioner was working in the

Irrigation Department of the State Government when he was voluntarily

retired from service, on the ground that he was not fit to perform his

duties. According to the petitioner, on 10/12/1997, the claim of the

petitioner was considered and she was appointed on compassionate

ground in Class-IV category, as a Class-III post was not vacant at the

relevant time. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was

qualified to hold a Class-III post and the case of the petitioner for

appointment to a Class-III post was recommended by the respondent

and the petitioner was re-appointed in a Class-III post on 25/10/1999.

On 18/04/2013, in view of the complaint made by an employee, who

claimed to be senior to the petitioner and who also possessed the

qualifications for appointment to a Class-III post, the petitioner was

reverted to the Class-IV post, where she was initially appointed. Being

aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, the petitioner filed an

original application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.

3 J-WP-6303-13.odt

The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed the original

application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the

said order in the instant petition.

Shri Choudhari, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner could not have been reverted to the Class-

IV post on which she was initially appointed on 10/12/1997 after a

long lapse of time. It is submitted that merely on the basis of the

objection raised by an employee, who claimed to be senior to the

petitioner and who possessed the qualifications for appointment on a

Class-III post, the petitioner could not have been reverted. It is

submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the Government

Resolution dated 23rd August, 1996 in the right perspective. It is

submitted that the action on the part of the respondent in reverting the

petitioner on the Class-IV post, is bad in law.

Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent supported the order of the

Tribunal as also the order reverting the petitioner. It is submitted that

an employee appointed to a Class-IV post could be later on appointed

on a Class-III post, if there is a stipulation in his appointment order in

that regard. It is submitted that there is no such stipulation in the

appointment order of the petitioner, appointing her in a Class-IV post

4 J-WP-6303-13.odt

on 10/12/1997 and the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefits

of the Government Resolution dated 23rd August, 1996. It is submitted

that the Tribunal has rightly considered the relevant aspects of the

matter to dismiss the original application filed by the petitioner.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a

perusal of the impugned order, it appears that it would be necessary to

allow this writ petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal as also

the order reverting the petitioner to the Class-IV post. The petitioner

was appointed on compassionate ground on a Class-IV post on

10.12.1997 only as there was no vacancy in a Class-III post though the

petitioner was qualified for appointment to a Class-III post. Without

any representation by the petitioner, the respondents recommended the

case of the petitioner for a re-appointment in a Class-III post as soon as

there was a vacancy in the year 1999. The petitioner was re-appointed

to a Class-III post on 25.10.1999. The petitioner worked on a Class-III

post for almost fourteen years when, on a complaint made by one of the

other employees, she was reverted to Class-IV post. The respondents

should not have reverted the petitioner to the Class-IV post in the year

2013, when she was re-appointed to the Class-III post in the year 1999.

It was very wrongful on the part of the respondents to have reverted the

petitioner to the Class-IV post after nearly fourteen years. If the

respondents had committed the mistake of re-appointing the petitioner

5 J-WP-6303-13.odt

on the Class-III post in the year 1999 and the petitioner was not at fault,

the respondents should not have considered reverting the petitioner

after a long lapse of time. Admittedly, the petitioner was qualified to

hold a Class-III post when she was re-appointed in the year 1999. It

would be very painful for the petitioner to work on a Class-IV post when

she had worked on a Class-III post for nearly fourteen years. In view of

the stay granted by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and in this

Court, the petitioner continued to work on the Class-III post despite the

order of her reversion, dated 18.04.2013. In the circumstances of the

case, merely because the Government Resolution, dated 23.08.1996

would not strictly apply to the case of the petitioner, the petitioner

could not have been reverted, solely on the basis of the complaint made

by one of the employees working on a Class-IV post. In the peculiar

facts and circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to protect the

services of the petitioner on the Class-III post when she has worked on

the said post for nearly eighteen years.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The

impugned order of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The order of

reversion of the petitioner, dated 18.04.2013 is also quashed and set

aside.

6 J-WP-6303-13.odt

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no

order as to costs.

                      JUDGE                             JUDGE




 Choulwar