State Of Maharashtra Through ... vs Arvind Chandrakant Rane
2022 Latest Caselaw 1195 Bom

                                                      7-WPST.1231.2022


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                 WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 1231 OF 2022

The State of Maharashtra            }
and Anr.                            }       Petitioners
          versus
Shri Arvind Chandrakant             }
Rane and Ors.                       }       Respondents

Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for petitioners.

Mr. S. C. Naidu i/b. Ms. Geetika Rajpal and Ms.
Deepa Thanekar for respondent nos. 1 to 4.

                          CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
                                 V. G. BISHT, J.

                          DATE :    FEBRUARY 2, 2022
P.C.:

1. Original Application No. 1105 of 2016 instituted before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (hereafter "the Tribunal", for short) filed by the respondents succeeded. While allowing the original application by its judgment and order dated 21st September 2021, the Tribunal has set aside the order under challenge therein dated 26th November 2015 and directed the State of Maharashtra in the Law and Judiciary Department to regularize the services of the original applicants in the pay-scale applicable to them with effect from 1st October 2021 and to issue necessary orders within 2 (two) months from date.

2. We have perused the judgment and order under challenge and have heard Mr. Samant and Mr. Naidu, learned AGP for the petitioners and the learned advocate for the respondents, respectively.

J.V.Salunke,PS 7-WPST.1231.2022

3. An arguable question has been raised in the writ petition; hence, Rule. Rule is made returnable on 23rd March 2022.

4. Let reply affidavits be filed by the respondents by 11 th March 2022; rejoinder thereto, if any, may be filed by 21 st March 2022.

5. Prima facie, we are satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to stay of operation of the order directing regularization of the services of the original applicants bearing in mind the fact that appointments were required to be made on the recommendations of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) which, admittedly, has not been the case when the original applicants were appointed. The Tribunal has not given due consideration to this aspect of the matter. Also, the Tribunal has relied on a decision of this Court which has subsequently been read and restricted to the facts of that case by a subsequent coordinate bench.

6. There shall, accordingly, be stay of operation of the order of the Tribunal; however, till such time the writ petition is finally disposed of, the respondents shall not be discontinued from services and allowed to work on the same posts as they were working immediately prior to delivery of the judgment and order under challenge and paid emoluments therefor.

SALUNKE JV Digitally signed by SALUNKE J V Date: 2022.02.03 11:13:20 +0530

(V. G. BISHT, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

J.V.Salunke,PS