Bombay High Court
Milind S/O. Pralhad Motghare vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal ... on 31 January, 2024
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
1 wp 733.24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.733/2024
(Dr. Milind V State of Maharashtra and others)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. R.S. Sirpurkar, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Deshpande, i/c Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 4.
Mr. Nahush Khubalkar, Advocate for respondent no.5.
CORAM : Nitin W. Sambre & Abhay J. Mantri, JJ
DATE : 31-01-2024.
Leave to correct the nomenclature of respondent no.5.
2. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.
3. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on
28-02-2024.
4. Mr. Khubalkar, learned Counsel waives notice for
respondent no.5.
5. Mr. Deshpande, in-charge Government Pleader, waives
notice for respondent nos. 1 to 4.
6. Our attention is invited to the judgment dated
05-10-2023 delivered in Writ Petition No.11453/2023 with other
connected matters, so as to claim that the petitioner's services ought
not to have been brought to an end by considering the retirement
age of 58 years.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has insisted for grant
of ad-interim relief by drawing support from the benefits extended
2 wp 733.24.odt
to the similarly placed candidates who are party to the judgment
delivered by the Principal Seat in above referred Writ Petition
No.11453/2023 and also applicants in Original Application
No.1107/2023 and other connected matters whose cases are claimed
to be at par with the petitioner.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has specifically urged
that vide order dated 30-10-2023, interim relief is granted by the
Division Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at
Mumbai in the aforesaid Original Application in spite of the effect of
third proviso to the Rule based on order of the Division Bench of
this Court delivered in Writ Petition No.11453/2023. As such
learned Counsel would urge that the petitioner is entitled for the
same relief. So as to substantiate the said claim, petitioner has drawn
support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter
of State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava and
others, reported in (2015) SCC 347 particularly paragraph 22.1,
which reads thus :
"22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the
aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the
respondents, can be summed up as under:
22.1. Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is
given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons
need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so
would amount to discrimination and would be violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to
3 wp 733.24.odt
be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service
jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time
postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated
similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely
because other similarly situated persons did not approach the
Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently."
9. We have appreciated the said submissions in the light of
the objection raised by learned Counsel for respondent no.5.
Similarly, in-charge Government Pleader has submitted that the case
is not fit for grant of ad-interim relief as in case if the petition
succeeds the petitioner can claim monetary benefits which issue can
be looked into at appropriate stage of the proceeding.
10. The fact remains that 3rd proviso to Rule 10 of the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, specifies that the
benefit under Rule 10 shall remain in force till 31-03-2023 where
after same has ceased to operate.
11. The fact remains that the order of the Division Bench
delivered by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at Mumbai
referred above cannot be said to be binding on this Court.
12. We are of the view that once Rule 10 does not extend
the benefit to the factual matrix in the case in hand. Hence, we are
not inclined to grant ad-interim relief in favour of the petitioner.
Apart from above, the considerations which made before the
4 wp 733.24.odt
Division Bench of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at Mumbai
while granting interim relief in favour of the petitioner viz; in Writ
Petition No.11453/2023 cannot be said to be similar to that of the
facts of the present case.
13. It is not the case of the petitioner that the 3rd proviso
to Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules is still
in operation as on today. That being so, we reject the prayer for grant
of ad-interim relief.
(Abhay J. Mantri, J.) (Nitin W. Sambre, J.)
Deshmukh
Signed by: Mr. S.Deshmukh
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 05/02/2024 18:32:31
