Bombay High Court
Nilkanth S/O Mahadeo Rokde vs Govt. Of Maharashtra Building And ... on 18 September, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
1 wp825.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.825 OF 2015
Nilkanth s/o. Mahadeo Rokde,
Aged about 80 years, Occ. Retired
Government Servant, r/o. Plot No.39,
Central Excise Layout, Telecom Nagar,
Khamla, Nagpur-25. .......... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. Government of Maharashtra,
Building and Public Work
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. Chief Engineer and Joint Secretary,
Public Works and Housing Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai. .......... RESPONDENTS
____________________________________________________________
Miss Meenaxi Iyer, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Tembre, A.G.P. for the Respondents 1 and 2.
____________________________________________________________
::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:25:37 :::
2 wp825.15.odt
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 18.9.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J) :
1. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the Order
of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur dt.20.6.2014
dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner and
holding that the petitioner was not entitled to promotion, as sought.
2. The petitioner was an employee of the Central Provinces
(old Madhya Pradesh) and after he had secured the diploma in
Craftsmanship of Overseer Trade in 1954, he was appointed in the
Central Provinces. On 21.4.1960, Bombay Gazette Notification was
issued, as a result of which a number of Overseers working in the
Central Provinces were allocated to the re-organized State of
Maharashtra w.e.f. 1.11.1956. The petitioner was included in the list
of Overseers that were entitled to be absorbed in the State of
Maharashtra and the name of the petitioner finds place in the list
that was annexed to the Order dt.22.2.1960. The Recruitment Rules
3 wp825.15.odt
for the Maharashtra Services of Engineering Class I and II were
notified in the year 1960 and the Government Resolution was issued
on 10.2.1961, whereby the Sub-Overseers allotted from the erstwhile
Hyderabad State and possessing two years' Diploma Course
Certificate, as stipulated in the said Government Resolution, were
entitled to be absorbed as overseers. The petitioner was granted a
deemed date as an Overseer on 11.1.1965. The petitioner passed the
professional examination meant for an Overseer in November, 1966
and he was promoted as an Overseer on 1.2.1967. According to the
petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to further promotion as the
petitioner was already absorbed as an Overseer in the year 1960 in
the State of Maharashtra vide Order dt.22.2.1960. The employees
that had put in 10 years of service as Overseers and that had passed
the two years diploma Course as specified, were entitled to be
promoted as the Sub-Divisional Officers. The petitioner was
promoted as a Sub-Divisional Officer on 31.12.1982 whereas,
according to the petitioner, he ought to have been promoted as a
Sub-Divisional Officer on 28.11.1970. The petitioner retired as a
Sub-Divisional Officer in the year 1993. The petitioner has sought
for the deemed date of promotion as a Sub-Divisional Officer in Class
II services w.e.f. 28.11.1970 and further promotion as an Executive
4 wp825.15.odt
Engineer w.e.f. 28.2.1986 along with the consequential benefits.
Since the Original Application of the petitioner was dismissed by the
impugned order, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.
3. Miss Meenaxi Iyer, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Bombay Government Gazette Notification
dt.21.4.1960 clearly shows that the petitioner was absorbed as an
Overseer in the re-organized State of Maharashtra and he was not
absorbed as a Sub-Overseer. It is submitted that since 10 years of
service as an Overseer would entitle an employee for promotion to
the post of Sub-Divisional Officer viz. a Class II Post, the petitioner
was entitled to be promoted in the Class II Post as a Sub-Divisional
Officer on 28.11.1970. It is stated that in accordance with the Rules,
the petitioner would be entitled to promotion to the post of
Executive Engineer w.e.f. 28.2.1986. It is submitted that merely
because the petitioner had appeared in the Overseer examination,
the respondents could not have promoted the petitioner as an
Overseer in 1967 when he was actually absorbed as an Overseer in
the re-organized State of Maharashtra in the year 1960. It is
submitted that though the case of the petitioner was similar to the
case of Mr.M.L.Tapas whose Writ Petition was allowed by this Court,
5 wp825.15.odt
the Tribunal has wrongly held that the qualifications of Mr.Tapas
and the qualifications of the petitioner were distinct and separate. It
is submitted that in fact the subjects in which the petitioner had
appeared while securing the diploma in Craftsmanship of Overseer
Trade are more than the subjects that were prescribed for the
Course, of which Mr.Tapas possesses the Certificate. It is submitted
that all these aspects of the matter as also the Bombay Government
Gazette Notification dt.21.1.1960 were not considered by the
Tribunal in the right perspective while dismissing the Original
Application filed by the petitioner.
4. Mr.P.S.Tembre, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that though there is
a mention in the Bombay Government Gazette Notification
dt.21.4.1960 pertaining to allocation/absorption of the petitioner as
an Overseer in the re-organized State of Maharashtra, the petitioner
had appeared in the examination meant for the Overseers and had
passed the same only in the year 1966 as a result of which he was
promoted as an Overseer on 1.2.1967. It is submitted that the
Craftsmanship Course from Koni-Bilaspur (M.P.) as possessed by the
petitioner is different from the Course of Overseer which was
6 wp825.15.odt
possessed by Mr.Tapas. It is submitted that the petitioner was not
absorbed as an Overseer in the re-organized State of Maharashtra
but was absorbed as a Sub-Overseer as he was holding the diploma
in Craftsmanship. It is stated that the case of the petitioner and
Mr.Tapas is different and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not
granted the relief to the petitioner.
5. It is apparent on a perusal of the Bombay Government
Gazette Notification dt.21.4.1960 that the petitioner was absorbed as
an Overseer in the re-organized State of Maharashtra and not as a
Sub-Overseer. The said order was never amended by the
respondents. Merely because the petitioner had passed the
professional examination of Overseer in November, 1966, he could
not have been absorbed as an Overseer in the year 1967, as is said to
have been done by the respondents. The petitioner had put in 10
years of service as an Overseer in the State of Maharashtra and
therefore, he was entitled to be promoted as a Sub-Divisional Officer
or in Class II services w.e.f. 28.11.1970. As per the Rules, the
petitioner was also entitled to further promotion as an Executive
Engineer w.e.f. 28.2.1986. The petitioner was however not
promoted to the Class II services and as an Executive Engineer w.e.f.
7 wp825.15.odt
28.11.1970 and 28.2.1986 respectively on an assumption that the
petitioner was not absorbed in the State of Maharashtra as an
Overseer but was absorbed as a Sub-Overseer. We do not find any
substantial difference in the qualifications of Mr.Tapas and the
petitioner. The documents pertaining to the Course and the diploma
possessed by them were placed before the Tribunal and are also
annexed to this Writ Petition. The Tribunal was not justified in the
circumstances of the case to deny the relief to the petitioner when
similar relief was granted to Mr.M.L.Tapas after he filed the Writ
Petition. Since we find that the petitioner was absorbed as an
Overseer in the year 1960 and not as a Sub-overseer, the prayer
made by the petitioner before the Tribunal needs to be granted.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is
allowed. The impugned Order is quashed and set aside. The
respondents are directed to grant deemed date of promotion to the
petitioner in Class II services w.e.f. 28.11.1970 and further
promotion as an Executive Engineer w.e.f. 28.12.1986. In the
peculiar circumstances of the case, the petitioner would however not
be entitled to interest on the amount that is liable to be paid to the
petitioner towards difference of salary as the petitioner had belatedly
8 wp825.15.odt
filed the Original Application in the year 1992 when the petitioner
was on the verge of retirement, though the petitioner had sought
promotion in Class II services, with effect from 28.11.1970.
The respondents are directed to release the monetary
benefits to the petitioner within four months.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
[jaiswal]
9 wp825.15.odt
