Dismissed

Zilla Parishad Jalgaon through Chief Executive Officer and Anr. v. Dnyaneshwar Narayan Chaudhari and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Mar 2011WP/990/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected petitioner’s writ petition challenging Competent Authority’s exemption of physically challenged discharged census employees from written examination. Court upheld direction based on rights accrued under GAD resolutions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected; no costs awarded to petitioners.

What the court decided

Zilla Parishad Jalgaon through Chief… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

wp990.11

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 990 OF 2011

¶5

Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon and another

¶6

..PETITIONERS

¶7

-VERSUS-

¶8

Dyaneshwar S/o Narayan Chaudhari and another

¶9

..RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. Vijay Sharma, advocate for petitioners. Mr. S.P. Brahme, advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶11

..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 14th March, 2011.

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Heard Advocate Mr. Sharma for petitioner, Advocate Mr.Brahme for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶14

Advocate Mr. Sharma for petitioner has contended that the reliance by Competent Authority/Commissioner for Welfare of physically handicapped has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it on 26.07.2010 by directing the respondents to be given benefit of concession as discharged census employees. He points out that procedure for recruitment prescribed by GAD vide Government Resolutions dated 12.03.1998, 27.05.1998 and 20.07.1998 has undergone change because of subsequent Government decision dated 6th October, 2010. In this case, the Competent Authority could have looked into that grievance only of physically challenged employees/persons and that consideration has to be in the light of

¶15

¶16

wp990.11

¶17

Government decision dated 25th October, 2005, 19th November, 2003, and 7th June, 2004. All these government decisions required physically challenged employees to appear for written examination and also for oral interviews. The direction to give exemption to respondents by competent authority is therefore unsustainable.

¶18

Advocate Mr. Brahme for respondents has contended that the respondents are physically challenged persons who worked as census employees and are therefore discharged census employees who are entitled to benefit not only as physically challenged persons but also as census employees. He therefore contends that the procedure prescribed vide Government decisions dated 12.03.1998, 27.05.1998 and 20.07.1998 can not be ignored in case of present respondents merely because they happen to be physically challenged employees. As this constitute violation of their rights, the Competent Authority has rightly intervened in the matter. He also points out that later resolution dated 6th October, 2010 has to operate perspectively while recruitment in question has been undertaken in 2006. According to him, the Competent Authority has also noted that similar exemption was earlier given in the year 2000 by the State Excise Department and by Zilla Parishad.

¶19

After hearing respective Counsel, I am satisfied that the petitioners are physically challenged persons claiming preference not only as such but also in addition are discharged census employees. Rights accrued to them as discharged census employees could not have been denied only because they are physically challenged. The government resolution dated 12.03.1998, 27.05.1998 and 20.07.1998, therefore did not permit

¶20

¶21

wp990.11

¶22

the petitioners to subject them to any written examination. Consideration of this aspect by competent authority in paragraph nos. 4, 7 and 8 of its impugned orders does not reveal any jurisdictional error or perversity.

¶23

Advocate Mr. Sharma has placed reliance upon the Government resolution dated 6th October, 2010 to urge that census employees are also obliged to appear in written examination. It is apparent that this resolution was not in existence in 2006 when the impugned recruitment was undertaken.

¶24

I therefore do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity, the Petition is rejected. No costs.

¶25

At this stage, Advocate Mr. Sharma has pointed out paragraph no.3 and paragraph no.4 of Government Resolution dated 25th October, 2005 to urge that concession given to discharged census employees is removed thereby. The contention can not be accepted. The government has in paragraph no.4 noted preference already available to discharged census employees and preserved it. The said Government Resolution therefore does not have effect of removing the concession extended to discharged census employees by resolutions of 1998 already mentioned above.

¶26

( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE

¶27

gas/wp990.11

Zilla Parishad Jalgaon through Chief Executive Officer and Anr. v. Dnyaneshwar Narayan Chaudhari and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Zilla Parishad Jalgaon through Chief Executive Officer and Anr. v. Dnyaneshwar Narayan Chaudhari and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N Anjanaiah Vs Shrikant Vishwanath Puranik and Ors.

Kailaschand Fattechand Ajmera Vs Swastik Sahakari Bhadekari Malaki Guhnirman Sanstha through Chairman and Ors.

Ghansham Food Products Vs Supplyco the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Mahesh Pannalal Gandhi Vs Sukhdeo Baburao Dukre and Ors.

Jaikumar Kedu Wani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pralhad Sitaram Pawar and Anr. Vs Sitaram Devrao Pawar and Ors.