Bombay High Court
Shri. Mukunda Budharam Shiwarkar ... vs Union Of India, Thr. Secretary, ... on 1 September, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, Urmila Sachin Phalke
2023:BHC-NAG:13071-DB
1 914.WP.4184-2018 & ANR..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4184 OF 2018
( Shri Mukunda Budharam Shiwarkar & Ors.
Vs.
The Union of India, Thr. The Secretary, Department of Defence
Production, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi & Ors. )
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4229 OF 2018
( Shri Deorao Vithoba Kirmire
Vs.
The Union of India, Thr. The Secretary, Department of Defence
Production, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi & Ors. )
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mr. M.G. Burde, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. S.A. Chaudhari, Advocate for the Respondents.
CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.
DATED : 1st SEPTEMBER, 2023
Heard Mr. Burde, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the
respondents.
2. The petitions question the judgment dated
04.01.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Mumbai, in Original Application Nos. 517, 518 and
606/2015.
2 914.WP.4184-2018 & ANR..odt
3. It is an admitted position between the parties, that
earlier in point of time, the petitioners have filed Original
Application Nos. 2213/2008, 2195/2009 to 2203/2009
(Group of 10 matters), which came to be decided by the
judgment dated 20.07.2010 (page 66). The judgment dated
20.07.2010 allowed the Original Applications in terms of the
prayers contained in para 8(1), 8(1A), 8(2) and 8(3) of the
O.A., which has been quoted in para 2 of the said judgment
itself (page 67). The respondents in pursuance to the said
judgment, however, were of the opinion that the relief as
claimed in para 8(1A), was partly granted, as a result of
which, the petitioners were constrained to file Original
Application Nos. 517, 518 and 606/2015, for claiming the
relief in terms of para 8(1A), as contained in the Original
Application No. 2213/2008 and others. These Original
Application Nos. 517, 518 and 606/2015, have been
dismissed by the impugned judgment holding that in the
Original Applications, no relief of directing the respondents to
grant them ACP-II in the Highly Skilled Grade-II was granted.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents do not
dispute the prayers and judgment dated 20.07.2010.
5. In fact, a perusal of para 8(1A) would indicate,
that this relief was indeed claimed in the earlier Original
Applications (page 68), which came to be granted, as is
reflected from para 8 of the judgment dated 20.07.2010. In
that light of the matter, the impugned judgment of the
learned Central Administrative Tribunal, cannot be sustained
and the same is hereby quashed and set aside and it is
3 914.WP.4184-2018 & ANR..odt
declared that the petitioners are entitled for the relief as
claimed in para 8(1A) of the O.A. No. 2213/2008 and
connected matters, as quoted in para 2 of the judgment dated
20.07.2010 and as granted therein
6. The Petitions are accordingly allowed in the above
terms. No costs.
7. Needless to say, that the petitioners would be
entitled to all consequential reliefs in terms of the relief in
para 8(1A) having been granted by the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, by the judgment dated 20.07.2010.
8. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed
of accordingly.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
SD. Bhimte
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 02/09/2023 11:01:50
