The State Of Maharashtra & 2 Ors vs Ramkrishna Kashinath Karande
2018 Latest Caselaw 510 Bom

                                                       1                        wp3453.02

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



                           WRIT PETITION  NO.3453 OF 2002




1)      The State of Maharashtra, through the
        Revenue and Forest Department, 
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 

2)      The Chief Conservator of Forests,
        (Conservation), at Jaika Building, 
        Sadar, Nagpur. 

3)      The Divisional Forest Officer
        (Integrated Unit Division), Ballarshah,
        District Chandrapur.                               ...            Petitioners

                 - Versus -

Ramkrishna Kashinath Karande,
r/o Government Depot Colony, 
Ballarshah, District Chandrapur.                           ...            Respondent

                                   -----------------
Ms. N.P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for petitioners. 
                                   ----------------



                                          CORAM :    B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND 
                                                     MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI,  JJ.

DATED : JANUARY 16, 2018

2 wp3453.02

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) :

Ms. Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

petitioners, states that as per her instructions, respondent expired on

7/7/2006. A lady claiming to be a second wife has approached

Department and some documents including legal heir certificate were

demanded from her. She submits that developments thereafter are not

within her knowledge.

2) The impugned orders dated 5/2/2002 and 30/4/2002

delivered by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal direct payment of

arrears to deceased by adjusting certain amount with interest.

3) The writ issued by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on

30/4/2002 consequential to the adjudication and disposing of Civil

Application No. 168/2002 is independently challenged.

4) On 7/10/2002 this Court issued rule and also directed rule on

interim relief. Perusal of order dated 2/12/2002 shows that petitioners

were directed to deposit amount as directed by Maharashtra

Administrative Tribunal within four weeks and respondent was permitted

to withdraw that amount. Amount of Rs.55,309/- was deposited with the

Registry of this Court. Respondent Ramkrishna has withdrawn that

amount vide cheque dated 28/11/2003. A lady by name Asha wife of

3 wp3453.02

Ramkrishna has furnished security bond/solvency certificate.

5) After 2003, matter was listed before this Court on 11/1/2018

and thereafter today again.

6) The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has considered the

Government Resolution dated 7/7/1981 in paragraph 16 of its order. It

has reproduced relevant para thereof in the said paragraph. In next

paragraph it has found the directions issued therein inconsistent. The

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has found that once employee is

entitled to deemed date of seniority and promotion, he is entitled to all

benefits.

7) Perusal of underlined portion of said Government Resolution

reproduced by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal does not show any

such inconsistency to us. It only stipulates that after passing of

departmental examination, withheld arrears (increments) should be

released, but then actual amount becoming due on that account is not to

be paid.

8) In this situation, when amount has been paid about 15 years

back and employee is no more, we are not inclined to interpret said

provision. We only declare that interpretation put upon said Government

Resolution by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal shall not operate as a

4 wp3453.02

precedent in any matter.

9) With above clarification, we discharge rule and dispose of the

petition. No costs.

                    JUDGE                                             JUDGE




khj