Partly allowed

Jabir Hussain Munnawarali Puthawalla v. State of Mah. and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Apr 2011WP/5101/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Order addressed the petitioner's complaint regarding the non-regularization of his study leave. The Court directed the Municipal Council to reconsider and regularize his study period, ensuring he does not suffer due to administrative lapses, and was directed to conclude the process within three weeks of receiving the application.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to apply for regularization; Municipal Council directed to consider and regularize study period within three weeks.

Jabir Hussain Munnawarali Puthawalla Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

wp5101.95

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5101 OF 1995

¶5

Jabir Hussain Munwarali Puthawalla, Aged about 40 years, Occ : Municipal Service, R/o 2115, Ramchandra Khunt, Ahmednagar, 414 001.

¶6

..PETITIONER

¶7

	-VERSUS-
1.	The State of Maharashtra (Urban Development Department), Through
	Government Pleader, High Court Building, Aurangabad.
2.	Ahmednagar Municipal Council,
	Through its Chief Officer,
	Ahmednagar 414 001.
3.	Shri. M.S. Davale, Deputy Collector,
	Employment Guarantee Scheme,
	Collectorate, Ahmednagar (Deleted
	as per Courts order dated 13.09.2002)
4.	Collector, Ahmednagar
5.	Director of Municipal Administration, State of Maharashtra, Bombay.	RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. M.V. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1, 4 and 5 Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶9

(CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 28TH APRIL, 2011.

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶11

Heard Advocate Mr. Deshpande for petitioner-employee,

¶12

Advocate Mr. Bedre for respondent no.2-Municipal Council and

¶13

¶14

wp5101.95

¶15

learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1, 4 and 5.

¶16

The petitioner was permitted on 22.08.1991 study leave to obtain diploma in course for Sanitary Inspector. This order of Chief Officer of Municipal Council was also cleared by general body by passing unanimous resolution on 08.11.1991. The petitioner claims that accordingly he had completed diploma and reported back for duty. However, his study period has not been properly regularized, and therefore, he could not get any benefit of that qualification. Attention is invited to orders passed by the respondent no.4Collector on 10.02.1992 staying/suspending resolution dated 08.11.1991 of the Municipal Council under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965. Learned Counsel states that the said order does not indicate how action of Municipal Council was/is against the public interest and in any case, as the petitioner had already reported for training, resolution was implemented and hence, it could not have been stayed.

¶17

Advocate Mr. Bedre for respondent no.2-Municipal Council and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1, 4 and 5 support the impugned order.

¶18

¶19

wp5101.95

¶20

3. Advocate Mr. Bedre contends that the study leave was given

¶21

to the petitioner as per orders of President dated 19.08.1991 to undergo that training at his own costs and by availing balance leave to his credit with express understanding that completion of that course would not entitle him to any better posting or service.

¶22

I have perused the order of Chief Officer dated 22.08.1991. It clearly gives understanding to petitioner that he has to complete that course at his own costs and that period is to be adjusted against the leave available to his credit. He was also informed that it will not obligatory on the part of Municipal Council to appoint him on the post of Sanitary Inspector. This order is then looked into by Municipal Council i.e. General Body on 08.11.1991 and accepted. The Municipal Council then found that, earlier, two employees namely Mr. Mohite and Mr. Chavan were also similarly relieved.

¶23

Impugned order passed by Collector under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act shows that at the relevant time one post of Chief Sanitary Inspector was vacant since 01.04.1991 and after promotion to that post vacancy was being created in the post of Sanitary Inspector. Therefore, Municipal Council has sent the petitioner for requisite training but then Chief Officer had pointed out that in next below cadre employees senior to the

¶24

¶25

wp5101.95

¶26

petitioner were available and vacancy in cadre of Sanitary Inspector was for reserved category candidates. Hence, it could not have been filled in by appointing petitioner. Petitioner therefore could not have been appointed as Sanitary Inspector in near future and hence, expenditure on his training was unwarranted. After looking in to these facts, Collector has found resolution of Municipal Council improper and has suspended it.

¶27

Though, I do not find anything wrong with the application of mind by Collector and order can not be faulted with because of discussion in para 26 and 44 of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported at "2003(3) B.C.R. 550"-Sanjay Govind Sapkal V/s Collector of Dhule still the fact that petitioner was already relieved and had completed his course can not be overlooked. In any case, petitioner can not be made to suffer as there is no fault on his part. Municipal Council has to take appropriate decision about his study period, regularize it and pass appropriate orders in that connection.

¶28

Date on which the petitioner completed his training is not on record. Hence petitioner is permitted to move appropriate application to his employer-Municipal Council within a period of two weeks from today. If such application is moved, the respondent no.

¶29

¶30

wp5101.95

¶31

2-Municipal Council shall consider the same in accordance with law and regularize the study period accordingly. The said decision will be taken as early as possible and in any case further period of three weeks thereafter.

¶32

With these directions, the present Writ Petition is partly

¶33

allowed. No costs.

¶34

( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE

¶35

gas/wp5101.95

Jabir Hussain Munnawarali Puthawalla v. State of Mah. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jabir Hussain Munnawarali Puthawalla v. State of Mah. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maruti Arjun Kshirsagar and Anr. Vs Madrawati Gangadhar Kshirsagar

Lilabai Vasant Lahare Vs Dilip Nana Diwate and Ors.

M/S Arco Transport Company Jalngaon Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization Sub Regnl Office Nashik

Kishansingh Sukhlal Rajput Vs Mangalsingh Sukhlal Rajput and Ors.

Suresh Narayanrao Bhosale Vs Lachama Reddy Irra Reddy Bhutan Hippargekar and Ors.

Basawaraj Vishwanathappa Utge Vs Ajay Kamlakarrao Maindarkar