Bombay High Court
The Secretary, Irrigation Dept. ... vs Shri. Popat Kisan Jadhav And Ors on 4 March, 2021
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
Digitally
Vidya signed by
Vidya S. Amin
S. Date:
2021.03.05
Amin 11:28:55
+0530
4.WP7850_2018
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7850 OF 2018
The Secretary, Irrigation Dept. & Anr. ... Petitioners
vs.
Popat Kisan Jadhav & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. B.V. Samant, AGP for the State/petitioners.
Mr. Omkar Kulkarni for the respondents.
CORAM :- DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
G. S. KULKARNI, J.
DATE :- MARCH 4, 2021
PC :
1. The Secretary, Irrigation Department and the Executive
Engineer, Irrigation Division, Khadakwasla, are the petitioners
in this writ petition. They challenge the judgment and order
dated October 15, 2013 passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, whereby Original
Application No. 561 of 2012 filed by the respondents was
allowed upon condonation of delay by holding that the
respondents were eligible for grant of second benefit under
the Assured Career Progression Scheme on the date of
completion of 24 years on Converted Regular Temporary
Establishment in terms of Government Resolution dated April
1, 2010.
4.WP7850_2018
2. The writ petition has been presented before this Court
on March 19, 2018. Responding to our query as why it took
the petitioners more than four years to invoke the writ
jurisdiction of this Court, Mr. Samant, learned AGP appearing
for the petitioners has drawn our attention to paragraph 18 of
the writ petition. The contents of the said paragraph purport
to be the explanation for the belated approach offered by the
petitioners.
3. We have perused paragraph 18. We do not find any
particulars of events happening after the petitioners obtained
the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order in late
October, 2013 till 2017 which would, with some degree of
clarity, suggest where the file got stuck and who was
responsible. The contents of the said paragraph clearly
manifest the carelessness and negligence of the petitioners in
arriving at a decision to challenge the judgment and order of
the tribunal. Only on the ground of delay and laches, this writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. However, Mr. Omkar Kulkarni, learned advocate
appearing for the original applicants/respondents in this
4.WP7850_2018
petition has placed before us the judgment and order of a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court dated July 4, 2018 in Writ
Petition No. 6011 of 2018 (The Secretary, Irrigation
Department, Mumbai & Anr. vs. Mahadev Shivaji Jagtap).
According to him, in similar facts, the co-ordinate bench
spurned the challenge laid by the petitioners and upheld the
order of the tribunal granting similar benefits which have been
extended to the respondents in the present case.
5. We have perused the said judgment and order and find
that the submission of Mr. Omkar Kulkarni is correct.
6. Mr. Samant is presently not in a position to say as to
whether the Secretary, Irrigation Department, Mumbai, who
was one of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 6011 of 2018,
had carried such order before the Supreme Court by a Special
Leave Petition.
7. Even otherwise, we do not see any reason to take a view
different from the one taken by the co-ordinate bench in its
judgment and order dated July 4, 2018.
4.WP7850_2018
8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed both on
the ground of delay and laches as well as on merits. There
shall be no order as to costs.
9. We grant the petitioners two months' time to implement
the judgment and order of the tribunal.
(G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
