Bombay High Court
Vinod S/O Narayan Vilayatkar And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 18 October, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil Laxman Pansare
1/7 305.caw.1882.2022 aw caw.1554.2021 in wp.1515.2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CIVIL APPLICATION (CAW) NO. 1882 OF 2022
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION (CAW) NO. 1554 OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1515 OF 2020
(Vinod Narayan Vilayatkar & Ors. V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's orders
Coram, Appearances, court's orders or
directions and Registrar's orders
Mr. R. L. Khapre, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. A. S.
Shukla, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. N. S. Rao, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 7.
Mr. J. B. Kasat, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
Mr. F. T. Mirza, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4
and 5.
Mr. N. P. Lambat, Advocate for Respondent No.6.
------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.
DATE : OCTOBER 18, 2022.
CIVIL APPLICATION (CAW) NO. 1882 OF 2022
. Heard.
2. This Application is filed for amendment of the Petition.
3. For the reasons stated in the Civil Application, the
same is allowed in terms of prayer clause therein.
2/7 305.caw.1882.2022 aw caw.1554.2021 in wp.1515.2020.odt
4. Necessary amendment be carried out accordingly on or
before the next date. Amended copy of the Petition be filed on
record and amended copy be furnished to the learned AGP and
learned Counsel appearing for the respective Respondents, with
liberty to each of the Respondents to file additional replies, if any.
5. Civil Application is disposed of accordingly.
CIVIL APPLICATION (CAW) NO. 1554 OF 2021
. Heard Mr. Khapre, learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioners and Mr. Mirza, learned Counsel for the Respondents -
Management.
2. It is the contention of the Petitioners that in order to
take vindictive action against the Petitioners, since they are
claiming pay scale payable to them in accordance with law by
filing this Petition before this Court with the amendment, during
the pendency of this Petition the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have
terminated their services.
3. Mr. Khapre, the learned Senior Counsel submits that
since the termination order has been passed during the pendency
of the Petition and has proximate relation with the cause of
action, being pursued by the Petitioners in this Petition, it is
permissible for the Petitioners to directly challenge the
3/7 305.caw.1882.2022 aw caw.1554.2021 in wp.1515.2020.odt
termination order (in stead of going to the College Tribunal for
doing the same) in this Petition. In support of his contention, he
places reliance upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of (i) Pooja Pal V/s Union of India and Others, (2016)
3 Supreme Court Cases 135; (ii) Javed Iqbal Chhotebabu V/s
Administrator, Jawahar Urdu High School & Others, 2006(2)
Bom.C.R.701; (iii) Anil Govind Naik V/s State of Goa, 2015 SCC
OnLine Bom 603; and (iv) Avinash Prabhakar Latpate and others
V/s State of Maharashtra and others, 2007(1) Mh.L.J.731 .
4. According to Mr. Mirza, learned Counsel for the
Respondents - Management, there is a settled law which tells us
that whenever an alternate remedy is available, party must be
relegated to the same. He has further submitted that when an
alternate remedy is effectively and statutorily provided, under no
circumstances this Application can be allowed by this Court. In
support of his contention, he points out to the recent Judgments
delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) Shri
Vidya Ram Misra V/s Managing Committee, Shri Jai Narain
College, (1972) 1 Supreme Court Cases 623; (ii) Meena Laxman
Kapashikar V/s Vice Chancellor, Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University and others, 2012(5) Mh.L.J. 951; and (iii) Dr.
Mir Sadique Ali V/s Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society and others,
Writ Petition No.3367/2020 decided on 8/9/2021.
5. The learned Counsel for the Respondents -
4/7 305.caw.1882.2022 aw caw.1554.2021 in wp.1515.2020.odt
Management also invites our attention to the provisions of Section
81 and Section 83 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act,
2016 and Regulation No.4 read with Regulation No.2 of the
Regulation, 2021 framed by the Notification dated 22nd March,
2021 by All India Council for Technical Education. He supports
the argument that whenever there is an alternate remedy
provided, writ petition must not be filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India before this Court.
6. The learned Counsel for the Respondents -
Management further submits that, in any case, if this Application
is allowed, it will change the nature of the Petition which can be
seen from the limited prayer clause of this Petition. Therefore, on
this ground alone, the Application be rejected.
7. So far as availability of effective and statutory remedy
is concerned, we find that there can be no dispute about the same.
Section 81 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016
provides for the right of appeal and Section 83 thereof speaks of
the powers of the College Tribunal to give appropriate relief and
directions, which include the power to reinstate an employee on
the same post or on a lower post, as it may specify, having regard
to the circumstances of the case.
8. Similarly, under Regulation, 2021, particularly
Regulation No.4, there is a Grievance Redressal Committee
5/7 305.caw.1882.2022 aw caw.1554.2021 in wp.1515.2020.odt
constituted by the AICTE and this Committee, as seen from the
Regulation, has a power to consider and adjudicate upon any of
the grievances listed in said Regulation, which include the
grievance of termination without giving any reason or notice or
memorandum.
9. So, the alternate remedy is indeed available and the
Petitioners can even now choose to approach the College Tribunal
for redressal of their grievance arising from termination of their
services, by exercising right of appeal under Section 81 of the
Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. All said and done,
there is another angle involved in the entire dispute, the angle of
something done by the Management, during the pendency of this
Petition, and which has been perceived by the Petitioners to be a
case of graver injustice to them, just because, according to the
Petitioners, they have dared to approach this Court for compelling
the Management to pay to them the salary with pay scales
approved by the State Government, together with all the arrears
and allowances, Grade Pay/AGP and increments, as detailed in
Annexures-2 and 3 to the Petitioners.
10. In support of this contention, the learned Senior
Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance upon the cases
which are referred to earlier. Therefore, a question has arisen as to
whether this is a fit case for relegating the Petitioners to
statutorily available alternate remedy or making of any
6/7 305.caw.1882.2022 aw caw.1554.2021 in wp.1515.2020.odt
interference by this Court by invoking its extra ordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the
grounds stated by the Petitioners ? This question, obviously, would
have to be decided on its own merits after hearing both the sides.
Therefore, we are of the view that it would be appropriate that
this amendment is allowed.
11. Of course, there is yet another objection raised on
behalf of the Respondents - Management. According to them, if
this amendment Application is allowed, it would result in
changing the nature of the Petition. With due respect to the
submissions made across the bar by the learned Counsel for the
Respondents - Management in this regard, we differ with him.
12. We are of the view that the proposed amendment
including proposed prayer clauses are only in furtherance of the
overall submission of the Petitioners that the Management has
been treating them in an unreasonable and unjust manner, one of
the instances of which, according to the Petitioners, is of denial of
salary to them as per the pay scale approved by the State
Government and the second instance, as the Petitioners submit, is
in the nature of termination of their services during the pendency
of this Petition. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the
objection so taken by the Management.
13. In the result, this Application is allowed. Amendment
7/7 305.caw.1882.2022 aw caw.1554.2021 in wp.1515.2020.odt
be carried out accordingly to the Petition on or before the next
date and copy of the amended Petition be filed on record. Copy of
the amended Petition be furnished to the learned AGP and learned
Counsel appearing for the respective Respondents with liberty to
them to file their additional replies, if any.
14. All the contentions raised on behalf of both the sides,
on the basis of merits of this amendment are kept open and shall
be heard and decided at the time of final hearing.
15. Meanwhile, we also grant liberty to the Petitioners to
approach the College Tribunal for redressal of their grievances in
regard to the alleged illegal termination of their services, if they
are so advised.
16. Stand over to 15th November, 2022.
[ANIL L. PANSARE, J.] [SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.]
Yadav VG
Digitally Signed ByVIJAYA
GOURISHANKAR YADAV
Signing Date:19.10.2022
18:58
