Allowed

Vijaykumar Shaligram Patil v. Maharashtra Agro Industrial Dev Corporation Ltd. through Managing Director

Bombay HC27 Apr 2012WP/700/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench of the Bombay High Courtbench at Aurangabad dismissed a departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner after his resignation was accepted. The court held inquiries post-resignation are illegal, ordered the inquiry quashed, and directed the respondent to process the petitioner's claim for gratuity and other benefits.

What did the court decide?

The departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to file an application for gratuity and other benefits, and the respondent is directed to

Vijaykumar Shaligram Patil Vs Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

WP700-11

¶3

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

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE, CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.: 700 OF 2011

¶6

***

¶7

Vijaykumar S/o Shaligram Patil, Age: 52 years, Occu. Agri., R/o At Post Neri (Bk) Opp. Hotel Mohini, Tq. Jamner, District Jalgaon.

¶8

... PETITIONER.

¶9

Versus

¶10

Maharashtra Agro Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., A Government of Maharashtra Undertaking, having its Office at Rajan House,, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 025. Through its Managing Director.

¶11

... RESPONDENT. ***

¶12

Mr. Ajay G. Talhar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Jagdish G. Toshniwal, Advocate for the
Respondent.

¶13

***

¶14

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL &
S.B.DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATED: 27th APRIL, 2012.

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT [Per Naresh H. Patil, J.]:

¶16

1.Rule, made returnable forthwith, by consent
heard finally.

¶17

2.The petitioner seeks directions in terms of

¶18

prayer clause (C) and (D), which reads as under:

¶19

"C)By appropriate writ order or

¶20

direction the departmental inquiry

¶21

¶22

WP700-11

¶23

initiated by the respondent against the

¶24

petitioner may kindly be declared

¶25

illegal and bad in law and be quashed
and set aside.

¶26

D)By appropriate writ order or

¶27

direction the respondent be directed to
pay the petitioner the amount of
gratuity, leave salary payment and all
other consequential benefits along with
interest @ 12%."

¶28

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner placed
reliance on judgment of Division Bench of this
Court [Coram: F.I.Rebello & A.R.Joshi, JJ.] dated
5th February, 2010 in writ Petition No.1930 of 2005
in the case of Mr. Dhairyasheel A. Jadhav V.
Maharashtra Agro Industrial Development Corporation
Ltd. Learned counsel for Respondents submits that
in the Service Rules framed by the Respondents
there is no provision to initiate departmental
inquiry after superannuation of the employee or
after acceptance of resignation of the employee.
In the case of the Petitioner, the Respondents

¶29

initiatedthedepartmentalinquiryafter

¶30

resignation of the petitioner was accepted by the
management.

¶31

¶32

WP700-11

¶33

4.Learned counsel further submits that the

¶34

amount of gratuity has not been paid to the
petitioner on account of initiation of the
departmental inquiry.

¶35

5.Learned counsel for the respondent placed
reliance on the affidavit in reply. Learned
counsel fairly submits that in the existing Rules
framed by the Respondent in respect of governing
service conditions of the employees working with
the Respondent, there is no provision to initiate
departmental inquiry after employee superannuates
or resignation of the employee is accepted by the
management. The Counsel submits that the charges
leveled against the petitioner are serious in
nature. The Respondent suffered loss to the tune
of Rs.50 to 60 Lakhs due to negligence and inaction
on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the
petitioner shall not be permitted to take advantage
of absence of the provision in respect of
initiationofdepartmentalinquiryafter

¶36

superannuation. The Counsel further submits that
in respect of petitioner's claim towards gratuity
there is alternate forum available to the
petitioner.

¶37

6. We have perused the judgment delivered by

¶38

¶39

WP700-11

¶40

Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.
1930 of 2005. We have also perused jusgment of
Division Bench [Coram: D.B.Bhosale & K.K.Tated,
JJ.] dated 25th November, 2011.

¶41

7.Learned counsel for the Respondent states that
there is no provision in the services Rules,
Regulations adopted by the Respondent after
starting departmental enquiry after an employee
superannuates. Therefore, it is clear that the

¶42

respondents are not entitled to initiate
departmental inquiry. The judgment delivered by
the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.l930 of 2005
 Mr. Dhiaryasheel A. Jadhav V/s Maharashtra Agro
Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. is a clear
answer to the issue raised in the present petition.
In view of the said judgment, the issues in respect
of merits of the allegations made by the Respondent
against the petitioner or petitioner's claim that
during his service tenure due to petitioner's
services the respondent was benefited need not be
gone into by this Court.

¶43

8.As regards claim of the petitioner regarding
gratuity, we observe that the Respondent shall pass
appropriate orders on the application filed by the
petitioner in this regard.

¶44

¶45

WP700-11

¶46

9.In the facts of this case, we pass the
following order:

¶47

(a)The departmental inquiry initiated against the
petitioner is quashed and set aside.

¶48

(b)The petitioner is entitled to file application
with the Respondent for claiming gratuity and other
service benefits.

¶49

(c)In case such an application is filed by the
Petitioner, the Respondent shall pass appropriate
orders within four weeks and communicate the
decision to the petitioner.

¶50

(d)If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said
order, the petitioner is at liberty to resort to
appropriate remedy.

¶51

(e)Rule is made absolute in above terms. No

¶52

costs.

¶53

[S.B.DESHMUKH,J.] [NARESH H.PATIL,J.]
Dated:27/04/2012.
ans/WP70011

¶54

¶55

WP700-11

¶56

WRIT PETITION NO.: 700 OF 20011

¶57

Date of decision: 27th APRIL, 2012.

¶58

For approval and signature

¶59

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE NARESH H. PATIL.

¶60

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S. B. DESHMUKH.

¶61

Whether Reporters of local papers...Yes
may be allowed to see the judgment?
To be referred to the Reporter or not?... No
Whether Their Lordships wish to see ... No
fair copy of the judgment?

¶62

Whether this case involves a substantial... No
question of law as to the interpretation
of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any
order made thereunder?

¶63

Whether it is to be circulated to the... No
Civil Judges?

¶64

Whether the case involves an important... No
question of law and whether a copy of
the judgment should be sent to Nagpur,
Goa and Bombay offices?

¶65

[G. F. ANSARI]

¶66

PRIVATE SECRETARY TO THE
 HONOURABLE JUDGE

Vijaykumar Shaligram Patil v. Maharashtra Agro Industrial Dev Corporation Ltd. through Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaykumar Shaligram Patil v. Maharashtra Agro Industrial Dev Corporation Ltd. through Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Baburao Gadekar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shailja Basavraj Valande Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Maruti Keshavrao Wagh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shivaji Dnyanoba Kendre and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

The Godawarimarathwada Irrigation Development Corpn. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Udalsing Vithalsing Rajput Vs Akash Lalchand Gothwal and Ors.