Dilip S/O Hiralal Tiwari vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9416 Bom

2023:BHC-NAG:13320-DB


                                                            1                                     31.WP.4085-2022.odt




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 4085 OF 2022
                                  ( Dilip s/o Hiralal Tiwari
                                              Vs.
                The State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary, Home Department,
                                Mantralaya, Mumbai & Ors. )

         Office Notes, Office Memoranda                         Court's or Judge's orders
         of Coram, Appearances, Court's
         orders     or    directions and
         Registrar's orders


                                 Mr. D.R. Rupnarayan, Advocate for the Petitioner.
                                 Ms. Tajwar Khan, AGP for the Respondents/State.




                                 CORAM:        AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
                                               URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.

DATED : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2023

Heard Mr. Rupnarayan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Khan, learned AGP for the respondents/State.

2. The petition challenges the judgment dated 18.01.2022 passed by the Member, Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector (A.S.I.) from Head Constable (H.C) in the year 2009, the option as contained in the proviso to Rule 11 (2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 1981, (for short "M.C.S. (Pay) Rules, 1981") was not brought to his notice, inspite of an earlier 2 31.WP.4085-2022.odt

Government Resolution dated 19.12.1995 (page 45) in this regard.

4. The proviso to Rule 11 (2) of the M.C.S. (Pay) Rules, 1981, grants an option to be exercised by the Government servant within a period of one month from the date of his appointment, to elect for fixation of his pay in one of the manners as indicated in the proviso. It is an admitted position, that no such option came to be exercised within the time frame limit as indicated in the proviso to Rule 11 (2) of the M.C.S. (Pay) Rules, 1981. That apart, even the Government Resolution dated 19.12.1995 requires that such an option in case not made/exercised within a reasonable period of time, the opportunity would be lost. It is an admitted position, that no such option has been exercised by the petitioner, since more than last 12 years, considering which, we do not see any reason to interfere in the judgment passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur.

5. The Petition is therefore without any merit and it is dismissed accordingly. No costs.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

SD. Bhimte

Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 08/09/2023 10:22:57