Niyazoddin Viqaroddin vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 8566 Bom

                                                                 W.P. No.641/2008
                                      (( 1 ))


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


                         WRIT PETITION NO.641 OF 2008



 Niyazoddin Viqaroddin
 Died, through his L.Rs.

 1)       Khurshid Begum Niyazoddin,
          Age 65 years

 2)       Munnubegum w/o Aminoddin,
          Age 45 years

 3)       Salimoddin Niyazoddin,
          Age 40 years

 4)       Rashidoddin Niyazoddin,
          Age 36 years

 5)       Shahnaz Begum Sharifur Rahman
          Age 35 years

 6)       Dilshad Begum Naseroddin
          Age 28 years

 7)       Shamshad Begum Niyazoddin,
          Age 24 years

          All R/o Par Mohalla,
          Hakim Saudagar's House,
          Pathri, Taluka Pathri,
          District Parbhani                 ...   PETITIONERS

          VERSUS

 1)       The State of Maharashtra
          through Government Pleader,
          High Court, Aurangabad.

 2)       The Collector, Parbhani

 3)       The Tahsildar, Pathri,
          District Parbhani



::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017                      ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 01:16:06 :::
                                                                        W.P. No.641/2008
                                            (( 2 ))



 4)         The Godown Keeper,
            Pathri Tahsil Office, Pathri,
            District Parbhani                     ...   RESPONDENTS


                                 .....
 Mrs. A.N. Ansari, Advocate for petitioners
 Shri B.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3
                                 .....

                                 CORAM:           RAVINDRA .V. GHUGE AND
                                                  SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

DATED : 9th NOVEMBER, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.):

1. By this petition, the petitioner has put forth the

following prayers in terms of prayer clauses 12(A), (B) and (C) :-

(A) To admit and allow this Writ Petition.

(B) To direct the respondents to grant and release the Overtime

Allowance from the year 1984 up to 31.12.1995 for 4 hours

per day except Sundays.

(C) To direct the respondents to pay the interest on Overtime

Allowance amount from the date he is entitled till the date

actually paid to Petitioner.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that, he was

appointed as a Peon with the Government Grainery at Pathri. He

was not appointed as a Watchman. However, the petitioner was

directed by the authorities to work as a Peon between 10.00 a.m.

W.P. No.641/2008 (( 3 ))

and 6.00 p.m. and then work as a Watchman between 6.00 p.m.

to 10.00 p.m. and some times from 6.00 p.m. to 10.00 a.m. The

letter issued by the Godown Keeper, dated 20.7.1990 is shown,

in which, the Godown Keeper has stated that the petitioner was

also working as a Watchman.

3. We have considered the strenuous submissions of

learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P., who

has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 to 3. Respondent

No.4, the Godown Keeper at Pathri, has not appeared in the

matter despite service of Court notice.

4. In the light of the submissions of the petitioner, we

do not find any document placed on record whereby the

appointing authority had directed the petitioner to perform duties

as a Watchman though he was selected and appointed as a Peon

in the Department. No such order indicating the delegation of

duties has been pointed out, except that the Godown Keeper

contends that the petitioner was working as a Watchman as well

after performing his duties as a Peon.

5. One document is pointed out, which is said to be a

letter issued by the Tahsildar, dated 29.5.1984, whereby the

petitioner is said to have been directed to work as a Watchman

W.P. No.641/2008 (( 4 ))

from 29.5.1982. The said letter doesn't spell out whether he

would be entitled to extra wages.

6. We are dealing with a case where a regularly appointed

Peon, who is confirmed in employment as a Peon, claims to be

working as a Watchman beyond his working hours as a Peon, and

is claiming overtime for which the State has to prescribe the

payment of such overtime.

7. It requires no debate that, when it comes to payment

of overtime in any State instrumentality, there has to be a

provision made by the competent authority, by which a specific

rate has to be fixed for deciding the quantum of money that

would be paid to an employee if he is performing overtime.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a

Government Resolution was issued by the General Administration

Department, dated 19.9.1983, prescribing the amount to be paid

to a Watchman, we do not find that it would be an answer to the

issue we are dealing with. The said Government Resolution

prescribes the wages to be paid to a Watchman.

8. Notwithstanding the above, we find that the

petitioner has already approached the Maharashtra

Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad Bench in Original Application

W.P. No.641/2008 (( 5 ))

No.393/1995. An entire claim for overtime was made before the

Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the claim made by the

petitioner and finally granted overtime for four hours from

16.6.1984 to 31.12.1995. The rest of the claim put forth by the

petitioner was rejected.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically submits

that the petitioner has not challenged the judgment of the

Tribunal, dated 5.2.2001.

10. In the light of the above, notwithstanding the

deficiencies that we have noted, the fact that the petitioner has

lodged his claim before the tribunal which has adjudicated upon

the same, we cannot entertain this petition for a claim made for

overtime for some remainder portion, keeping in view that the

entire claim for overtime has been dealt with by the Tribunal, and

adjudicated upon.

11. As such, this petition being devoid of merit, is

dismissed. Rule is discharged.

          ( SUNIL K. KOTWAL )             ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE )
               JUDGE                             JUDGE

 fmp/