Ramdas Gularamji Nagpure vs State Of Mah. Thr. Secty & 2 Otrs
2017 Latest Caselaw 2228 Bom

                                                                                 1                                                                wp3411.08

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



                                                      WRIT PETITION NO.3411/2008

Ramdas S/o Gularamji Nagpure, 
Age 64 Yrs., Occu. Retired, 
R/o Kannamwar Ward, near 
Mata Mandir, Bhadrawati, 
Distt. Chandrapur.                                                                                                                                             ..Petitioner.

            ..Vs..

1.          State of Maharashtra,
            through its Secretary, 
            Ministry of Rural Development 
            and Water Resources Department, 
            Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 

2.          The Commissioner,
            Nagpur Division, Nagpur.

3.          The Chief Executive Officer,
            Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur.                                                                                                           ..Respondents.
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
           Shri G.N. Khanzode, Advocate for the petitioner. 
           Ms. H.N. Prabhu, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
           Shri N.W. Almelkar, Advocate for respondent No.3.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 



                                                                CORAM :  Z.A.HAQ, J.

                                                                DATE  :     4.5.2017.



ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Shri G.N. Khanzode, Advocate for the petitioner, Ms. H.N.

Prabhu, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Shri N.W. Almelkar, Advocate

for the respondent No.3.

2 wp3411.08

2. The petitioner - employee of Zilla Parishad has challenged the order

passed by the learned Additional Commissioner by which the appeal filed by

the petitioner under Rule 14(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District

Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 is dismissed and the decision of

the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad withdrawing the time bound

promotion given to the petitioner on completion of 12 years of continuous

service, is upheld.

3. The claim of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as

Junior Assistant on 13th January, 1968, then promoted as Junior Accounts

Officer in November, 1979 and then after the scheme of time bound promotion

came to be introduced by the Government resolution dated 8 th June, 1995 he

was given time bound promotion by the order dated 30 th May, 1996 as he had

completed 12 years of continuous service and as he was found eligible. The

promotion was effective from 1 st October, 1994. According to the petitioner,

by the order dated 17th July, 1997 the petitioner was granted exemption from

qualifying the examination for being eligible for the post of Deputy

Accountant, the exemption being effective from 12 th November, 1989 when the

petitioner completed 45 years of age.

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad issued an order on 8 th

January, 1999 cancelling the earlier order dated 30 th May, 1996. The

3 wp3411.08

petitioner challenged this order before the Divisional Commissioner in the

appeal which is dismissed by the impugned order.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that after completing the age of

45 years he was not required to qualify the departmental examination for time

bound promotion and the Chief Executive Officer had properly considered this

and by the order issued on 17 th July, 1997 exemption was granted to the

petitioner from qualifying the departmental examination.

5. The Government resolution dated 8th June, 1995 by which the

scheme of time bound promotion came to be introduced laid down that for

availing benefits of time bound promotion the employee should fulfill the

requirements of seniority, eligibility and should qualify the required

examination and departmental examination. The stand of the respondents is in

consonance with the Government resolution dated 8 th June, 1995. The

learned Advocate for the respondent No.3 has pointed out the communication

issued on 12th February, 1997 by the Desk Officer, Rural Development and

Water Conservation Department Mantralaya, Mumbai to the Chief Executive

Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sindhudurg by which it is clarified that for the

promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer the employee should

qualify the departmental examination. I find that the decision of the Chief

Executive Officer and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner are

4 wp3411.08

proper and do not require any interference by this Court in the extraordinary

jurisdiction.

Apart from this, the record shows that the petitioner filed this

petition on 29th July, 2008 to challenge the order passed by the Divisional

Commissiner on 16th March, 2000. In the petition, the petitioner has stated

that he stood superannuated on 31 st January, 2002. The petition is filed after

8 years and 4 months of the passing of the impugned order after 6 years and 6

months of superannuation of the petitioner.

In view of the above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned

orders. The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear

their own costs.

JUDGE

Tambaskar.