Bombay High Court
Ashok Pandurang Suryawanshi vs The State Of Mah And Ors on 8 January, 2018
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
1 WP 121 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Writ Petition No. 121 of 2013
* Ashok Pandurang Suryawanshi,
Age 57 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. Sahjewan Colony,
Plot No.51, Govt. Milk Dairy,
Dhule. .. Petitioner.
Versus
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary
Department of Road Transport.
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
2) Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation,
Through its Manging Director,
Nashik.
3) The Divisional Controller,
M.S.R.T.C., Dhule Division,
Dhule. .. Respondents.
----
Mrs. S.T. Kazi, Advocate, for petitioner.
Shri. P.G. Borade, Assistant Government Pleader, for
respondent No.1.
Shri. U.B. Shriram, Advocate, holding for Shri. D.S. Bagul,
Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
----
Coram: T.V. NALAWADE &
S.K. KOTWAL, JJ.
Date: 8 January 2018
2 WP 121 of 2013
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per T.V. Nalawade, J.):
1) Rule, rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
both the sides by consent for final disposal.
2) The petition is filed to challenge the order
dated 4-3-2011 issued by the respondent No.3, employer
of the petitioner, of recovery of rent in respect of the
residential quarter allotted to the petitioner. The period
mentioned is from December 2009 to January 2011. The
employer wanted to recover the rent at the rate of
Rs.1730/- per month in respect of this period.
3) The submissions made and the record show
that the petitioner was working as driver on the bus of the
respondent. While driving the bus on 6-11-2008 he met
with accident and due to that he became incapable to
drive the bus. He was terminated from the post of driver
but subsequently by using the provisions of scheme made
in favour of such employees he was given appointment as
sweeper in the year 2009 but he was given actual posting
in the year 2011. He came to be transferred to different
3 WP 121 of 2013
place like Shahada in the month of February 2011.
Though he was given actual posting in the year 2011 he
continued to occupy that quarter. The recovery is ordered
for the period from December 2009 to January 2011.
4) It can be said that the Department ought to
have taken decision in respect of the entitlement of the
petitioner to get other post as he was not able to work as
driver due to injury sustained by him in the accident.
Though he was terminated for some time, he was
reinstated. It is up to the Department to take decision
promptly for giving different post on which such employee
can work. If the matter remained pending with the
employer and the employee continues to occupy the
residential quarters the rent at the aforesaid rate cannot
be recovered from the employee. Further, the submission
made and the record show that the period between the
date of termination and the date of his appointment on the
post of Sweeper was treated as the period of leave without
pay and so he was in service. Due to this also this Curt
holds that the rent at the aforesaid rate cannot be
recovered from the petitioner. This court is not touching
4 WP 121 of 2013
the remaining period and if after his transfer to Shahada
he had continued to occupy the residential quarters and
he had not vacated the quarters within the time fixed as
per rules. The Department can take separate action for
that.
5) In view of the circumstances, the petition is
allowed. The order under challenge is hereby set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/- Sd/-
(S.K. KOTWAL, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
rsl
