Administrative tribunal
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 05 January 2012
This query is : Resolved
Where i can get a judgments of maharashtra administrative tribunal cases . . . .
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 06 January 2012
go for indiankanoon
Bombay High Court
2- Ganpat Laxman Shinde vs 4- Sub-Divisional Officer And on 1 December, 2009
Bench: S.B. Deshmukh, Shrihari P. Davare
1
`IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 539 OF 2008
1- Shrimant Murlidhar Magar,
age 56 years, occ. Service,
r/o Hanuman Mandir Road,
Morage Wasti, Shrirampur,
District Ahmednagar,
At present working as Talathi at
Village Lakh, Tal. Rahuri,
Dist. Ahmednagar
2- Ganpat Laxman Shinde,
age 53 years, occ. Service,
r/o Talathi at Devlali Pravara,
Tal. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar,
R/o Behind Pravara Kanya
Vidyalaya, Maparwadi Road,
at Post Loni Kd.
Tal. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar ...Petitioners VERSUS
1- The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary Revenue
Department Mantralaya, Mumbai
2- The Collector, Ahmednagar,
Dist. Ahmednagar,
3- Sub-Divisional Officer,
Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar,
4- Sub-Divisional Officer and
Assistant Collector, Sangamner,
Dist. Ahmednagar ...Respondents 2
.....
Shri V.D.Sapkal, advocate for the petitioners Smt. V.A.Shinde, A.G.P. for the respondents. .....
CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH
AND
SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING
THE JUDGMENT : 21.11.2009
DATE OF PRONOUNCING
THE JUDGMENT : 01.12.2009
J U D G M E N T : (Per Shrihari P. Davare, J.) 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing.
2 By the present writ petition, filed by the petitioners under Articles 14, 16, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners prayed that the judgment and order dated 18.12.2007, rendered by learned Vice Chairman, Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad, in Transfer Application No. 2199 of 1991 in Writ Petition No. 2763 of 1990, be quashed and set aside and also requested that the termination order dated 9.9.1990 Exh. 'I' terminating the petitioners herein also be quashed and set aside.
3
3 Factual Matrix :-
It is the contention of the petitioners that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were appointed as Talathi on 1.2.1974 and on 1.11.1980 respectively. However, their services were terminated along with other 7 Talathis by order dated 26.7.1984 on the ground that their services were no longer required by the Government. Hence, the petitioners approached this court by filing Writ Petition No. 3685 of 1984, copy whereof is produced at Exh.'A', page 25, contending that their services were protected in view of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Public Services (Subordinate) Selection Boards (Repeal) Act, 1984; whereas the Government took the stand that the services of the petitioners were of temporary nature and same were not covered by Section 4 of the Maharashtra Public Services (Subordinate) Selection Boards (Repeal) Act, 1984. 4 Considering the rival contentions, this court set aside the termination order and held that the petitioners are deemed to be continuous in service as Talathi in Rahuri Sub-Division of Ahmednagar District with effect from the date next after the date on which the last of the appointment of Talathis was made in the said Sub-Division. However, they were not granted back wages, but were held entitled for the remuneration from the date 4
of the said order, vide judgment and rendered by this court on 24.4.1987, operative order of which is at pages 37 and 38. 5 Thereafter, although this court held that the status of the petitioners is deemed to be continuous in service as afore said, the respondents issued appointment order on 15.9.1987 to the petitioners Exh. 'B' page 39. Pertinently thereafter the respondents again terminated services of the petitioners without any reason on 31.12.1987, copy of the termination order is annexed at Exh.'C' page 41.
6 Thereafter, the Government issued an advertisement on 16.8.1989 for filling the posts which were lying vacant, which is annexed at Exh.'D' on page 42. Accordingly, on 5.12.1989, the said posts were filled in without considering the claim of the petitioners for reinstatement as per the directions of this court, copy of which is at Exh. 'E' on page 43. Hence, the petitioners filed Contempt Petition No. 104 of 1989 before this court. During the pendency of the said contempt petition, the respondents issued fresh appointment orders on 16.8.1990 and appointed the petitioners at Sangamner Sub-Division, copy of said appointment order is annexed at Exh. 'F' on page 45, but thereby they lost their seniority.
5
7 However, on 9.9.1990 the respondents issued termination order and thereby the services of the petitioners were again terminated, since the Government did not approve the appointments of the petitioners dated 16.8.1990. Copy of the said termination order dated 9.9.1990 is annexed at Exh. 'I' on page 52, which is impugned in the present writ petition. Hence, the petitioners filed writ petition no. 2763 of 1990 before this court challenging termination order dated 9.9.1990 and when it came for admission on 12.9.1990, this court granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause 'F' and thereby stayed the termination order dated 9.9.1990 with further directions to continue the petitioners in service pending hearing and final disposal of said writ petition, copy of which is annexed at Exh. 'M' on page 72. 8 Thereafter said writ petition no. 2763 of 1990 was transferred to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad and it was numbered as Transfer Application No. 2199 of 1991. The respondent nos. 2 to 4 filed the reply, copy of the same is annexed at Exh. 'N' page 74. The petitioners filed the rejoinder on 3.10.2003, annexed at Exh. 'O' page 93.
6
9 The petitioners filed an application seeking directions against the respondents to deposit the amount of arrears. Accordingly, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal directed the respondents to deposit the amount of Rs. Three Lacs and the petitioners were allowed to withdraw fifty per cent amount and remaining amount was directed to be deposited in the Nationalised Bank.
10 Thereafter, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad heard the Transfer Application No. 2199 of 1991 in Writ Petition No. 2763 of 1990 itself on merits, but dismissed the same vide order passed on 18.12.2007 and consequently vacated the interim relief order passed therein. 11 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order dated 18.12.2007, the petitioners have approached this court by way of present writ petition under Articles 14, 16, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the same and also assailing the termination order dated 9.9.1990, Exh. 'I', page 52. 12 Heard the learned respective counsel for the parties. 7
Submissions :-
13 It is the contention of the petitioners that this court while passing the order in Writ Petition No. 3685 of 1984 on 24.4.1987, after considering the entire issue, held that the petitioners are entitled to declaration that they have been continuous in service through out and that the order of termination of their services was illegal, and ultimately set aside the termination order and held that the petitioners should be deemed to be continuous in service as Talathis in Rahuri Sub- Division of Ahmednagar District with effect from the date next after the date on which the last of the appointment of Talathis was made in the said Sub-Division, as well as this court held that the petitioners were entitled for back wages and they were held entitled for their remuneration from 24.4.1987, although back wages were not granted to them. The respondents did not approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the said order dated 24.4.1987 and as such the said order has attained the finality.
14 Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that although status of the petitioners was declared and they were deemed to be continuous in service, the respondents issued the appointment letter dated 15.9.1987 illegally and said order 8
was contrary to the order passed by this court on 24.4.1987, since there were no directions to appoint the petitioners by giving fresh appointments. Accordingly, the judgment of this court dated 24.4.1987 was construed wrongly by the respondents. 15 Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the further termination order dated 31.12.1987 terminating services of the petitioners, is illegal and that respondents did not comply with the directions issued by this court in Writ Petition No. 3685 of 1984 on 24.4.1987 and the said termination letters were issued in violation of the orders of this court. 16 Learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that in fact nine posts were lying vacant at the time of termination of the services of the petitioners, and pertinently, no reason for the termination of the services of the petitioners was assigned. 17 Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that the Government gave advertisement on 16.8.1989 for filling the vacant posts and same were filled on 5.12.1989 without considering the claim of the petitioners for reinstatement as per the decision of this court. It is further submitted that the petitioners were required to file Contempt Petition No. 104 of 9
1989 for implementation of the orders of this court and, therefore, the respondents issued fresh appointment orders to the petitioners on 16.8.1990, but thereby the petitioners lost their seniority. Hence, it was an attempt on behalf of the respondents to act contrary to the decision of this court, since this court had directed that the petitioners would be deemed to be in continuous service as Talathis in Rahuri Sub-Division with effect from the date next after the date on which the last appointment of Talathis was made in the said Sub-Division. Hence, had the petitioners continued in Rahuri Sub-Disision, they would not have lost their seniority, but because of the order dated 16.8.1990 they lost the seniority.
18 Learned counsel for the petitioners also canvassed that because of the appointment/transfer order issued on 15.9.1987 Exh. 'B', common seniority list was prepared by the respondent no.3 as on 1.4.1989 and names of the petitioners were shown at Sr. Nos. 166 and 180 respectively therein. A copy of seniority list prepared on 1.4.1989 is annexed at Exh. 'G' on page 46. It is submitted that pertinently the names of 13 persons shown in the appointment order dated 5.12.1989 Exh. 'E' are not shown in the seniority list which is published on 1.4.1989, Exh. 'G'. Hence, it is submitted that the persons who were appointed by order dated 10
5.12.1989 should not have been issued appointment orders in preference with the petitioners and said act of the respondents is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 19 It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that surprisingly enough on 9.9.1990 the respondents were issued termination order contending that the Government did not approve the appointments of the petitioners. The petitioners submit that the said order is arbitrary and illegal. 20 Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that considering the length of service rendered by the petitioners and considering the Rule under which they were appointed, they have already acquired the status of permanancy as per the Government Resolution dated 28.8.1995, copy of which is annexed at Exh. 'L' on page 60.
21 As regards the impugned order dated 18.12.2007, passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that the Tribunal has wrongly held in para 18 thereof that the services of the petitioners were neither regularised nor they were made permanent because their services were depending upon certain contingencies and, 11
therefore, they were brought on the waiting list and awaiting absorption depending upon the vacancies and seniority in the waiting list. It is also submitted that the conclusion drawn by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and wrong reference of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC, for dismissal of Transfer Application, are unwarranted and are illegal. 22 To counter the arguments of the petitioners, the learned A.G.P. for the respondents canvassed that the interpretation of the Government Resolution dated 28.8.1995 Exh. 'L' has been drawn wrongly by the petitioners. Moreover, it is further submitted that there was nothing wrong in terminating the services of the petitioners on 31.12.1987 after their appointment on 15.9.1987, since the judgment and order passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 3685 of 1984 dated 24.4.1987 was not any impediment therein and the judgment and order passed by this court does not come in the way and does not prevent or prohibit the department from taking any action against the petitioners including the termination.
23 Learned A.G.P. for the respondents supported the termination order dated 9.9.1990 issued by the respondents and 12
also supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 18.12.2007 and submitted that the services of the petitioners were temporary and therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to acquire the status of permanency.
24 Learned A.G.P. for the respondents submitted that it is clear that the services of the petitioners were neither regularised nor they were made permanent because their appointments were depending upon certain contingencies and hence, they were brought in the waiting list and were awaiting absorption depending upon the vacancies and seniority in the waiting list. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, there was no violation of rules in passing the impugned order of termination of the petitioners dated 9.9.1990.
Consideration :-
25 We have perused the order passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 3685 of 1984 on24.4.1987 Exh. 'A', whereby said petition of the petitioners was allowed and the impugned orders of termination dated 26.7.1984 of the services of the petitioners were set aside directing them to be continuous in services as 13
Talathis as stated therein. We have also perused the appointment letters dated 15.9.1987 Exh.'B' appointing the petitioners as Talathis, as well as perused the termination orders dated 31.12.1987 Exh. 'C' terminating the services of the petitioners, as well as perused the copy of advertisement dated 16.8.1989 Exh. 'D' and also perused the appointment order dated 16.8.1990 Exh. 'F' appointing the petitioners as Talathis at Sangamner Sub-Division and also perused the impugned termination order dated 9.9.1990 terminating the services of the petitioners without assigning any reason therein Exh. 'I'. We have also perused the Government Resolutions dated 27.10.1987 Exh. 'J' and 28.8.1995 Exh. 'L' and further perused the impugned order dated 18.12.2007 rendered by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad dismissing the Transfer Application No. 2199 of 1991 in Writ Petition No. 2763 of 1990 and also heard the submissions advanced by the learned respective counsel for the parties anxiously. 26 It is thus amply clear that after considering the entire issue, and more particularly, after considering Section 4 of the Maharashtra Public Services (Subordinate) Selection Boards (Repeal) Act, 1984, in depth, this court in Writ Petition No. 3685 of 1984 while passing the judgment and order therein on 24.4.1987 14
has allowed the said writ petition and impugned orders terminating the services were set aside and it was also directed that the petitioners be deemed to be continuous in service as Talathis in Rahuri Sub-Division of Ahmednagar District with effect from the date next after the date on which the last of the appointment of Talathis was made in the said Sub-Division, but directed remuneration with effect from the date of said order I.e. 24.4.1987, and accordingly, this court has not accepted the contention of the respondents that the services of the petitioners were temporary. Pertinently, the respondents have not challenged the said judgment and order dated 24.4.1987 passed in Writ Petition No. 3685 of 1984 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence, the said judgment dated 24.4.1987 attained the finality. Hence, on the face of the said position, the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad on 18.12.2007 and observations made therein are patently illegal, contrary and perverse and, therefore, same is required to be quashed and set aside.
27 Moreover, it is also important to note that considering the directions issued by this court in Writ Petition No. 3685 of 1984 on 24.4.1987, there was no necessity of issuance of 15
appointment letters to the petitioners on 15.9.1987, since the petitioners were directed to be deemed in continuous service as per the said order and since there were no directions to appoint the petitioners by giving fresh appointment and, therefore, the consequent termination of the petitioners on 31.12.1987 was per se illegal. Apart from that, the petitioners again came to be appointed by appointment letters dated 16.8.1990 as Talathis in Sangamner Sub-Division, but thereby they lost the seniority. In fact, the appointment order dated 16.8.1990 was in compliance with the order passed by this court on 24.4.1987 in Writ Petition No. 3685 of 1984 where respondents were party thereto and, therefore, it was not subject to approval of the Government. 28 Moreover, the impugned order of termination dated 9.9.1990 Exh. 'I' page 52 terminating the services of the petitioners is without assigning any reason therefor, and is also against the principles of natural justice, and it can certainly be held contrary and in contravention of spirit of the order passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 3685 of 1984 on 24.4.1987. Hence, this court rightly stayed the said termination order dated 9.9.1990 in Writ Petition No. 2763 of 1990 at the time of its admission on 12.9.1990 and further directed to continue the petitioners in service pending hearing and final disposal of the 16
said writ petition. However, the said writ petition came to be transferred to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad and was numbered as Transfer Application No.2199 of 1991, wherein the impugned order came to be passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad on 18.12.2007 and the said order is also arbitrary and contrary on the face of it to the letter and spirit of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 3685 of 1984 on 24.4.1987 by this court, and hence, the impugned order dated 18.12.2007 rendered by learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal needs to be quashed and set aside.
29 It is also material to note and as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the rights of the other petitioners who were along with the present petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3685 of 1984 , namely Sayyad Allias-Sayyad Noor and 5 others were protected by this court by granting full relief by way of interim order to them and interim arrears were directed to be deposited, and subsequently, they were allowed to withdraw the entire amount and not only that, they were given due promotion and arrears, but the petitioners herein only were discriminated by the respondents. Moreover, our attention was also invited to the facts that while implementing the directions in Writ Petition No. 17
3685 of 1984 issued on 24.4.1987, the respondents treated the petitioners differently than the other petitioners in the said writ petition for all benefits, and other petitioners therein were made permanent and were given consequential benefits in service; whereas the petitioners herein only were singled out and were deserted.
30 In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment and order dated 18.12.2007 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 2763 of 1990 and the impugned termination order dated 9.9.1990 Exh. 'I' issued by respondents are contrary to law and against the letter and spirit of the judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No. 3685 of 1984 on 24.4.1987 by this Court and hence, they need be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice by exercising the extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 31 In the result, present Writ Petition succeeds and same is allowed in terms of prayer clauses 'C' and 'D' thereof. The impugned order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad, vide judgment and order dated 18.12.2007 in Transfer Application No. 2199 of 1991 in Writ 18
Petition No. 2763 of 1990 and the impugned termination order dated 9.9.1990 (Exh. 'I') are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in above terms. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (S.B.DESHMUKH, J.) dbm/wp539.08
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 06 January 2012
http://mahapolice.gov.in/mahapolice/jsp/temp/html/MAT.pdf
Welcome to eJurix
www.ejurix.com/JurixResources.aspxFull Text of All reported Tribunal Judgments from 1982;Full text of the IT Act ... Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, All India Services Act, 1951, Apprentices Act ... The Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal And Other Manual Workers, (Regulation Of ...
Rajeev Kumar
(Expert) 06 January 2012
Our both senior experts have already replied nothing to add more
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 06 January 2012
if you post your case facts mean mean peoples may provide you exact case lawss..
-tom-
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 06 January 2012
You have been sufficiently guided now.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 06 January 2012
Shroff! The author is requiring only the way to get the judgments and not a particular judgment whereas you have posted a judgment for him which is of no use for him as well as for us.
Author is advised to visit www.indiankanoon.com as there is no special site for the judgments of maharashtra administrative tribunal online.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 06 January 2012
Raj sir u r right
