Bombay High Court
Prashant Purushottam Vaidya vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 11 January, 2018
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
W.P.No.5471/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5471 OF 2017
Prashant Purushottam Vaidya,
Age 51 years, Occu. Service,
R/o 86, Yashwant Nagar,
Nanded ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Principal Secretary,
Social Justice and Special
Assistance Deptt., Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032
2. The Director of Social Welfare,
Maharashtra State, 3, Church road,
Pune 411 001
[3] The District Social Welfare Officer, } Deleted as per leave of
Zilla Parishad, Nanded } Court dated 28.4.2017
} and 4.8.2017
[4] The District Social Welfare Officer, }
Zilla Parishad, Latur }
}
[5] The District Social Welfare Officer, }
Zilla Parishad, Jalna } ..Respondents
Mr Ajay S. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner
Mr G.O. Wattamwar, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 and 2
Respondents no.3 to 5 deleted as per Court's leave dated 28.4.2017
and 4.8.2017
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
A.M. DHAVALE, JJ
DATE : 11th January 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.)
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned
Counsel for the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at
admission stage.
W.P.No.5471/2017
2. The petitioner had filed Original Application before the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal seeking increments from the
year 2000-2001. Along with the Original Application, the petitioner
had filed application for condonation of delay. The application is
rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition.
3. Mr Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was placed under suspension on 11.7.2000. The
suspension was revoked on 7.1.2001. However, the departmental
enquiry was initiated. The same came to be concluded in the year
2011. The petitioner was imposed punishment of withholding one
increment without affecting future increments. Learned Counsel
submits that until and unless the order was passed in the
departmental proceedings, his pay could not have been fixed.
According to the learned Counsel, even the suspension period whether
it is to be treated as a duty period or not could have been decided
only after the departmental proceedings have concluded and the
increments also would depend upon it. According to him, even the
order passed in departmental proceedings is not implemented as yet.
According to learned Counsel, though the increments are claimed
from 2000-2001, the same could not have been decided before
conclusion of the departmental proceedings. As such, it cannot be
said that there was an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner.
4. The learned A.G.P. supports the order and submits that there
are no plausible reasons given in the application. The Tribunal has
rightly considered the relevant aspects.
W.P.No.5471/2017
5. It is the matter of record that the departmental proceedings
were pending against the petitioner since the date of his suspension in
the year 2000 and petitioner was imposed punishment in the year
2011. The increments, as claimed by the petitioner also depended
upon how the suspension period is treated. That can only be done
after the departmental proceedings are concluded.
6. It is trite that when substantial justice and technical
consideration are pitted against each other, the cause for substantial
justice has to be subserved.
7. Considering the above aspects of the matter, we are inclined to
exercise our discretion.
8. The impugned order dated 21.3.2016 passed by the Member,
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad in Misc.
Application No.117/2016 in Original Application St.no.41/2016 is
hereby set aside. Misc. Application No.1176 of 2016 is allowed and if
there is no other impediment, the Original Application be registered
by the Tribunal.
10. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms with no order
as to costs.
( A.M. DHAVALE, J.) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)
vvr
