The Superintending Engineer, Ehv ... vs Pralhad Narayan Gadre
2021 Latest Caselaw 14840 Bom

                                               1                        18.W.P.No.845.20
                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                           WRIT PETITION NO.845/2020
          The Superintending Engineer, EHV O & M Circle, Amravati and Ors.
                                        Vs.
                             Vijay Gangadhar Karadwar
                                       WITH
                           WRIT PETITION NO.842/2020
          The Superintending Engineer, EHV O & M Circle, Amravati and Ors.
                                        Vs.
                                Panjab Maniram Agre
                                       WITH
                           WRIT PETITION NO.846/2020
          The Superintending Engineer, EHV O & M Circle, Amravati and Ors.
                                        Vs.
                               Pralhad Narayan Gadre
                                       WITH
                           WRIT PETITION NO.843/2020
          The Superintending Engineer, EHV O & M Circle, Amravati and Ors.
                                        Vs.
                           Dyneshwar Khushalrao Dawane
                                       WITH
                           WRIT PETITION NO.844/2020
          The Superintending Engineer, EHV O & M Circle, Amravati and Anr.
                                        Vs.
                               Madan Shripat Sonone
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,                               Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Shri S. D. Zoting, Advocate for Petitioners
                   Shri K. B. Dange, Advocate for Respondent.

                                  CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 11/10/2021.

1. The order dated 07.10.2019 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Yavatmal has been challenged in the present petition. The impugned order declares that the benefit of G.O.74 which was given to the complainant/respondent could not have been withdrawn,

on the ground that the petitioner has refused to accept the promotion which was granted to him by the order dated 23.06.2014 (page-106) which is reflected from the communication of the respondent dated 10.07.2013 (page-

121).

2. Mr. Zoting, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the G.O. 74, was brought into existence for the reasons that though certain employees were entitled to the benefit of promotion and the promotional ladder existed however on account of non-availability of vacancies the employees were not been promoted and therefore, the G.O. 74 conceived of monetary benefits being granted to such employees. He further contends that since there is a refusal to accept the promotion the consequent order dated 22.07.2014 by which the benefits granted to the respondent under G.O. 74, were withdrawn, was clearly justified and the learned Industrial Court ought not to have interfered with the same. He further submits that the order of promotion dated 23.06.2014, was on the recommendations of the competent selection committee and therefore, could not have been refused by the respondent. He therefore submits that the impugned order ought to go as it is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

3. Mr. K. B. Dange, learned Counsel for the respondent does not dispute the G.O. 74 the terms contained therein and the fact that the respondent has been granted benefit under the said G.O.

4. By inviting my attention to the language of Clause-(v) and (vii) of G.O. 74 dated 30.04.1974, he submits that the promotion contemplated therein is a regular promotion in a regular vacancy and not otherwise. As against this inviting my attention to the promotion order dated 23.06.2014, the learned Counsel submits that the said promotion is on purely temporary basis. Further inviting my attention to conditions 1 and 2 of the promotion order dated 23.06.2014, the learned Counsel further submits that the promotion was on a provisional basis, without prejudice to claim and seniority of others, if any, for the period not exceeding 6 months and so also subject to outcome/decision in Writ Petition No.8452/2004. He therefore, submits, that in view of the fact that the promotion which was offered was not in a regular post in the regular vacancy, condition No.10, as enumerated in the promotion order dated 23.06.2014 was clearly not attracted.

5. He further submits that from time to time the petitioners have kept the withdrawal of benefits on account of refusal of promotion, in abeyance for which my attention is invited to the communications dated 17.12.2013, 17.11.2017 and 15.06.2021. He submits, that the learned Industrial Court has relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.1090/1997 dated 22.02.2010 Gyan Chand Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan and other , in which a similar

controversy has been considered and it has been held that since the promotion was not to regular post any other offer, would not satisfy the requirement and the withdrawal of benefit therefore were not justified.

6. Mr. Zoting, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits, that there is a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court on this point and seeks time to place the same on record, in view of which list the matter tomorrow.

JUDGE

RGurnule