Bombay High Court
Yadav Tukaram Suryawanshi vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ... on 21 September, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep V. Marne
1 wp 10276.21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10276 OF 2021
Namdeo Mahadevrao Wakude .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10285 OF 2021
Yadav Tukaram Suryawanshi .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Shriniwas S. Wagh, Advocate for the Petitioner in both
matters.
Shri A. S. Shinde, A.G.P. for the Respondents/State in both
matters.
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND
SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
DATE : 21.09.2022.
FINAL ORDER (Per Sandeep V. Marne, J.) :
. By present petitions, petitioners challenge judgment and
order dated 21.06.2021 passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad in Misc.
Application No. 510 of 2018 (Original Application No. 940 of
2018) and Misc. Application No. 509 of 2018 (Original
Application No. 939 of 2018). By the impugned orders, the
2 wp 10276.21
Tribunal has refused to condone the delay in filing original
applications and dismissed the same.
2. In Writ Petition No. 10276 of 2021, the petitioner was
appointed on the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant Class III on
14.06.1979. He was granted temporary promotion on the post of
Scientific Assistant on 02.11.1982. On 31.07.1986, he was
granted regular appointment on the post of scientific assistant.
He was granted time bound promotion by counting twelve years
of service from 31.07.1986. It is his case that said twelve years of
service is required to be counted from 02.11.1982 making him
eligible for the time bound promotion with effect from 01.12.1994
and thereafter assured career progression scheme with effect
from 01.12.2006.
3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10285 of 2021 was
initially appointed on the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant
Class III on 01.09.1977. He was granted temporary promotion to
the post of Scientific Assistant with effect from 01.10.1983 and
was granted regular promotion as Scientific Assistant on
10.03.1986. He also desires counting of twelve years of service
for grant of time bound promotion from 31.10.1983 and not from
10.03.1986.
4. With these grievances, the petitioners filed their respective
original applications before the Tribunal in the year 2018.
Undoubtedly, the original applications were hopelessly time
barred. However, applications for condonation of delay were
3 wp 10276.21
filed. The delay was sought to be condoned essentially relying
upon the judgment and order of the Tribunal in the case of Dr.
Shankar B. Kasabe Vs. The Secretary, Public Health
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai (Original Application No. 732
of 2011) decided on 08.06.2016. The petitioners contended that,
their case is similar to that of Dr. Shankar B. Kasabe on that
ground the delay was sought to be condoned.
5. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
State of Karnataka and others Vs. S. M. Kotarayya and others
reported in (1996) 6 SCC 267, the Tribunal declined to condone
the delay and accordingly dismissed the original applications.
6. Appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Wagh, learned counsel
has relied on the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case
of K. C. Sharma and others Vs. Union of India reported in
(1997) 6 SCC 721 and contended that since the case of the
petitioners is similar to the earlier batch of original applications
decided by the Tribunal, the Tribunal ought to have condoned
the delay. He therefore, prays for setting aside the orders passed
by the Tribunal and to remand the original applications for
consideration of the same on merits.
7. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the
Tribunal in the case of Dr. Shankar B. Kasabe (supra) and find
that same has no remote application to the present case. The
issue before the Tribunal in the case of Dr. Shankar B. Kasabe
(supra) was counting of service of twelve years/twenty four years
4 wp 10276.21
from the date of initial adhoc appointments. As against this, the
petitioners have been permanently appointed on the post of
Senior Laboratory Assistants Class III. They claim to count the
services from the date of their adhoc promotions to the post of
Scientific Assistants. Thus, the issue involved in the case of Dr.
Shankar B. Kasabe (supra) was entirely different than the one
that was raised by the petitioners before the Tribunal.
Therefore, reliance of Mr. Wagh on the judgment of the
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of K. C.
Sharma (supra) is totally misplaced. The Tribunal has rightly
relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S. M.
Kotarayya (supra) for refusing to condone the delay.
8. We therefore do not find that any case is made out by the
petitioners for our interference in the order passed by the
Tribunal. The petitions are devoid of any merits. Same are
dismissed, however, without any orders as to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] [MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]
bsb/Sept. 22
