Shri. G. Vishweshwar Rao vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation And ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 23039 Bom

Bombay High Court

Shri. G. Vishweshwar Rao vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation And ... on 7 August, 2024

Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M. M. Sathaye

                      LSP                                      1                 26 wp 2286.19.doc




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                Writ Petition No.2286 of 2019

                      Shri G. Vishweshwar Rao                                 ...        Petitioner.
                            V/s.
                      Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation
                      and another                                             ...        Respondents.


                      Mr. Anil V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Amol Gatne for the
                      Petitioner.

                      Mr. Tejesh Dande for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

         Digitally
         signed by
                                                      CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR, AND
         LATA
LATA     SUNIL                                                M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.

SUNIL    PANJWANI
PANJWANI Date:
         2024.08.09
         11:43:20
                                                         DATE : 07 August 2024.
         +0530

                      P.C. :
                               Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The Petitioner was working with the Respondent-Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation. The Petitioner had earlier filed the writ petition in this Court bearing No.12290/2017 challenging the order passed by the Municipal Corporation dated 30 October 2017 imposing the penalty on the Petitioner. The Division Bench disposed of the Writ Petition by judgment and order dated 14 December 2018. The operative portion is as follows:

LSP 2 26 wp 2286.19.doc

"(i) We hereby set aside the order dated 30th October 2017 issued by the Municipal Commissioner (Exhibit -M to the petition);

(ii) We direct that the proposal submitted by the Municipal Commissioner for imposing penalty on the petitioner as provided in clause (g) of sub-section (2) of section 56 shall be placed for consideration before the immediately next General Body meeting of the said Corporation held after the date on which this judgment and order is uploaded. We make it clear that General Body will have to take a decision on the said proposal of the Municipal Commissioner one way or the other. If the General Body approves the proposal of the Municipal Commissioner, there will not be any question of reinstatement of the petitioner in service;

(iii) If the General Body of the Municipal Corporation by a resolution disapproves the proposal of the Municipal Commissioner of imposing penalty as aforesaid, the said Municipal Corporation shall immediately reinstate the petitioner in the employment with all consequential benefits except back wages subject to the directions contained in the said Resolution;

(iv) We also make it clear that if no decision is taken by the General Body of the Municipal Corporation on the proposal of the Municipal Commissioner, the State Government will be free to exercise its powers under the said Act for issuing necessary directions to the Municipal Corporation;

(v) Rule is partly made absolute on above terms with no order as to costs."

Thereafter, the resolution was passed by the General Body.

3. Impugned order was passed on 5 February 2019. The order

LSP 3 26 wp 2286.19.doc

referred to the order passed by the Division Bench dated 14 December 2018 and the resolution of the General Body. The Petitioner was reinstated in service on the post of Executive Engineer.

4. The main grievance of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner before termination was occupying the post of Joint City Engineer and he could not have been reinstated on the post of Executive Engineer, which is a lower post, as the reinstatement must be on the same post from which the Petitioner was removed. The learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that Petitioner has now retired from service and the issue now is about his pensionary benefits. The learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner submits that even the impugned order refers to the appointment of the Petitioner as a Joint City Engineer.

5. According to the Respondent-Corporation, though the Petitioner was appointed on the post of Joint City Engineer and this post was shown in the staffing pattern, the State Government did not approve the post of Joint City Engineer and,therefore, there cannot be any reinstatement on the post which does not find place in the sanctioned staffing pattern. It is the case of the Petitioner that though the post of Joint City Engineer is not in the sanctioned staffing pattern, the post equivalent to Joint City Engineer is Additional City Engineer and even the employees appointed in the meanwhile are holding the said post.

LSP 4 26 wp 2286.19.doc

6. There cannot be a dispute on the legal proposition that the reinstatement should either be on the same post and if the same post is in the meanwhile abolished or changed then on the equivalent post.

7. Therefore, we direct the Municipal Commissioner to examine the revised staffing pattern and the contention of the Petitioner that the post of Additional City Engineer is comparable to the post of Joint City Engineer when it existed. If the post of the additional City Engineer is comparable to Joint City Engineer when it existed then without waiting for further order, the Municipal Commissioner would take further steps. If not, file a reply on this count.

8. The learned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation states that copy of this order will be placed before the Municipal Commissioner.

9. Stand over to 22 August 2024.

     (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)                       (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)