Bombay High Court
Ahilyadevi Mahila Mandal vs Ramesh Mohan Rathod And Anr on 27 November, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4153 OF 2006
Ahilyadevi Mahila Mandal
(Through its President)
Smt.Tarabai Sahebrao Khatke)
Adgaon Bk, Taluka and Dist. Aurangabad -- PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Ramesh s/o Mohan Rathod,
Age-Major, Occu-Service,
R/o Gajanan Colony,
Aurangabad
2. The Appellate Authority
and Divisional Social Welfare Officer,
Aurangabad -- RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4922 OF 2006
Ramesh Mohan Rathod,
Age-37 years, Occu-Nil,
R/o Gajanan Colony,
Aurangabad -- PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Social Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
2. The Divisional Social Welfare Officer,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad,
3. The Spl.District Social Welfare Officer,
Aurangabad,
khs/NOV. 2017/4153
4. The Head Master,
Malharrao Holkar Primary Ashram
School, Adgaon (Bk.),
Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad,
5. The President,
Ahilyadevi Mahila Mandal,
Adgaon Bk. Tq. and Dist.
Aurangabad -- RESPONDENTS
Mrs.A.S.Rasal, Advocate for the petitioner/Management.
Mr.N.B.Narwade, Advocate for respondent No.1/employee.
Mr.B.A.Shinde, AGP for respondent No.2.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.)
DATE : 27/11/2017
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)
1. By the first petition filed by the Management, prayer clause 13-
A and 13-B are put forth, which read as under :-
"13-A - To quash the impugned order dated 28.3.2006 in Appeal
No.7 of 2004 passed by the respondent No.2.
13-B - Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition,
the operation, enforcement and implementation of the impugned
order dated 28.3.2006 in Appeal No.7 of 2004 passed by the
respondent No.2 be stayed and suspended."
2. In the second petition filed by the original employee, prayer
clause 21-B and 21-C put forth by him, read as under :-
"21-B - By issuing the writ of mandamus or any other
khs/NOV. 2017/4153
appropriate writ, the respondent No.4 and 5 may kindly be
directed to allow the petitioner to join the services on the post of
Kamathi at Mallharrao Holkar Primary Ashram School Adgaon
Bk. Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad.
21-C - The respondent - authority may kindly be directed to
deposit the amount of salary and all the back wages of amount
of Rs.1,24,563/- in this Hon'ble High Court within a stipulated
period since April 2004 till May, 2006."
3. We have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned
Advocate for the petitioner / Management and the learned Advocate
for the original petitioner.
4. While admitting the 1st petition on 17/07/2007, after hearing
the learned Advocates for all the sides, this Court had refused
interim relief to the Management.
5. We have perused the said order, which is a reasoned order.
This order assumes significance in view of the fact that pursuant to
the refusal of interim relief to the Management, the impugned
judgment of the Tribunal has been complied with. It is undisputed
that the original petitioner has been reinstated in service, has been
granted continuity and has also been paid a substantial portion of
khs/NOV. 2017/4153
his back wages.
6. An amount towards back wages has been deposited in this
Court and the original petitioner has moved an application for
seeking withdrawal of the said amount. We find that the
petitioner/employee had preferred C.P.No.191/2007. In the said
petition, the back wages were deposited in this Court and the
petitioner was permitted to withdraw a portion of the said back
wages.
7. While perusing the earlier order passed by this court on
17/07/2007, in the backdrop of the subsequent events that have
occurred in the last about 10 years, we find that the petition filed by
the Management was admitted only to the extent of considering
whether Rule 28(5) of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981 would have any effect
on the service of the petitioner and whether that would be a ground
for considering the contention of the Management that the impugned
order of the Tribunal is perverse.
8. We find that the petitioner/employee has now settled in
employment over a decade. It would be harsh to unsettle his
employment when he has worked for a decade ever since the filing of
khs/NOV. 2017/4153
these 2 petitions.
9. Keeping this fact situation in view, we find that these 2
petitions are left with an academic interest. As such, the first writ
petition filed by the Management stands disposed of. Rule is
discharged. Consequentially, the second petition filed by the
employee also is disposed off and rule is discharged.
10. In so far as the amount of back wages deposited in this Court
are concerned, the original petitioner/employee namely Ramesh
Mohan Rathod would be at liberty to withdraw the said amount with
accrued interest.
11. Pending civil applications, do not survive and stand disposed
off.
( SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/NOV. 2017/4153
