Allowed

Shreeram Sopanrao Dikle v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC3 Oct 2018WP/11139/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged reversion to Junior Engineer citing over-age at entry. Court held treating petitioner differently from 12 peers violated equality principles despite initial age compliance.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of reversion quashed; petitioner saved post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Grade II with notional increments; retrospective age limit not applied.

Shreeram Sopanrao Dikle Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 wp 11139.15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 11139 OF 2015

¶4

Shreeram Sopanrao Dikle,
Age: 48 Years, Occu.: Government Service,
R/o.: 45, 'Prayag',

¶5

Near Workshop Corner, Ashoknagar,
Nanded, Taluka and District: Nanded

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Water Supply and Sanitation, M.S., Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

¶9

2. The Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, through its Member-Secretary, Express Towers, 4^th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai

¶10

3.The Maharashtra Public Service
Commission, 5th Floor,
through its Secretary,
Bank of India Building,
M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai.. Respondents

¶11

Mr. Rajendra S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the
Petitioner.

¶12

Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, A.G.P. for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Deepak P. Bakshi, Advocate for Respondent No.
2.

¶13

Respondent No. 3 – served.

¶14

2 wp 11139.15

¶15

CORAM:S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
S. M. GAVHANE, JJ.

¶16

DATE:3 rd October, 2018

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT(PER: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) :

¶18

1.Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the
consent of learned counsel for respective parties
matter is taken up for final hearing.

¶19

2. The petitioner under appointment order dated 23.05.1997 was appointed as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) Grade II by the office of Superintending Engineer of Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran ( hereinafter referred to 'Pradhikaran' ). The petitioner had joined the said post. On 07.05.2002 notice was issued by respondent no. 2, informing the petitioner that by virtue of the ordinance the post held by the petitioner should have been filled in through Maharashtra Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to 'MPSC'). The petitioner was directed to explain why his services should not be terminated. The petitioner replied. On 20.04.2004 the Pradhikaran called upon

¶20

3 wp 11139.15

¶21

the petitioner to exercise the option so as to

¶22

accept the post of Junior Engineer or quit the
services. It is submitted that the petitioner had

¶23

no option but to accept the post of Junior
Engineer. The letter dated 20.04.2004 was a
subject matter of challenge before the Principal
Seat at Bombay in Writ Petition NO. 4208 of 2004
and 4220 of 2004 by two of the petitioner's
colleagues who were similarly situated. The Writ
Petitions were disposed of and directions were
given to the Pradhikaran to consider their cases.
This Court at Nagpur also issued similar
directions in Writ petition No. 1742 of 2005.
Pursuant to the directions given by this Court at
its Principal Seat, the Government issued Circular
so as to take steps to regularise the services of
the Assistant Engineer (Civil) Grade II. There
were in all 13 such candidates. The petitioner
finds his place at Serial No. 2 in the said list.
The petitioner was issued with the interview call

¶24

letter from the office of respondent no. 2,

¶25

4 wp 11139.15

¶26

thereby calling upon him to attend the interview
on 01.07.2010. The petitioner was interviewed by
the MPSC. The petitioner was found to be eligible
and his name found place at Serial No. 2 of the
list. Respondent no. 2 - Pradhikaran regularised
the services of the petitioner from unreserved
category on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil)
Grade II under order dated 12.07.2012, however, on

¶27

16.07.2012 another order was issued by the
respondent no. 2, wherein the name of the
petitioner came to be deleted from the list of
candidates whose services are regularised on the

¶28

post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Grade II. The
petitioner submitted representation and also filed
writ petition before this Court bearing Writ
Petition No. 2952 of 2013. This Court directed
respondent no. 2 to decide the representation.
Under order dated 09.04.2015, respondent no. 2
confirmed its earlier decision reverting the
petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer.

¶29

3.Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

¶30

5 wp 11139.15

¶31

petitioner submits that the petitioner was
appointed pursuant to the selection process
initiated in the year - 1996. At the relevant time
the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Grade II
was brought within the purview of MPSC vide
instructions dated 10.03.1997, Pursuant to which
the posts were to be filled in through MPSC.
Though the appointment order is issued to the
petitioner on 23.05.1997, the process was
initiated in the year 1996. The instructions dated
10.03.1997 to fill in the post of Assistant
Engineer (Civil) Grade II through MPSC were not
applicable to the petitioner. The learned counsel
submits that only on the ground that on the date
the petitioner was appointed the petitioner was
over aged the petitioner is treated differently
than the other 12 candidates who were appointed
along with the petitioner. The learned counsel
submits that the same cannot be a ground for
reversion. The petitioner is given permanency. All
the benefits of permanency were granted to the

¶32

6 wp 11139.15

¶33

petitioner from time to time. The upper age limit
for being appointed as a Junior Engineer and / or
Assistant Engineer (Civil) Grade II is the same.
The petitioner has been continuously working since

¶34

the year – 1997. Even the certificate of
permanency is issued to the petitioner. The
petitioner was also interviewed by the MPSC and
was found eligible for the post of Assistant
Engineer (Civil) Grade II. Considering all these

¶35

aspects there was no reason to treat the
petitioner differently. The impugned order be
quashed and set aside.

¶36

4.Mr. Bakshi, learned counsel for respondent

¶37

no. 2 – Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran submits

¶38

that at the relevant time the upper age limit for
appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer
(Civil) Grade II was thirty years. The petitioner
at the relevant time was aged 31 years. The

¶39

Government Resolution dated 17.08.2004 will not

¶40

apply to the petitioner wherein the maximum age
limit for Open category is prescribed as 33 years.

¶41

7 wp 11139.15

¶42

The said Government Resolution does not have
retrospective operation. In view of that, no error
has been committed by respondent no. 2.

¶43

5. We have considered the submissions canvassed

¶44

by the learned counsel for respective parties.

¶45

6.The factual matrix is not debated. The

¶46

following 13 persons were appointed to the post of
Assistant Engineer (Civil) Grade II -

¶47

xq.oRrk dzekad	mesnokjkps ukao	oxZokjh	fnukad
1	Jh- veqy y{e.k mckGs	v- tk-	76@1997
2	Jh- Jhjke lksikujko fMdy¢	vjk[kho	26@5@1997
3	Jh- ujasnz eqjyh/kj 'ksGds	b-ek-o-	10@6@1997
4	Jh- vfej vCnqy eqYyk	vjk[kho	20@6@1997
5	Jh- egs'kdqekj Hkxoarjko ikVhy	vjk[kho	2@6@1997
6	Jh- ijs'kpanz dkarhyky vykVdj	vjk[kho	21@6@1997
7	Jh- jkts'k rqdkjke lksjVs	v-t-	11@4@1997
8	Jh- 'ks[k fugky vgenu fglkeksfíu	vjk[kho	29@4@1997
9	Jh- ukenso f'kojke gadkjs	v- tk-	17@6@1997
10	Jh- lat; fnxacjjko ns'keq[k	vjk[kho	26@5@1997
11	Jh- nRrk=; dqaMfydjko yViVs	Hk- t-¼M½	9@6@1997
12	Jh- enuyky rqG'khjke ijes'oj	v- tk-	10@6@1997
13	Jh- lat; x.kirh ikVhy	Hk- t- ¼d½	17@6@1997

¶48

All these were appointed from the month

¶49

of April to June - 1997. The petitioner is

¶50

appointed on 26.05.1997. It appears that the

¶51

8 wp 11139.15

¶52

selection process commenced in the year – 1996,

¶53

and the petitioner as observed above is appointed
on 26.05.1997. The instructions were issued by the
Government under Government Resolution dated
10.03.1997 instructing respondent no. 2 that the
post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Grade II should
be filled in through MPSC, however, the selection
process had already commenced and these 13 persons
were already appointed pursuant to the selection
process after conducting interviews. It also
appears that on 22.10.1997 the petitioner was
extended revised pay scale of the post which he
was holding. The petitioner was also made
In-charge of the post of Deputy Engineer in
between 2002 – 2004. The services of the
petitioner also came to be confirmed after
completing the probation period. It is also not
disputed that the petitioner during his career as
an Assistant Engineer (Civil) Grade II has passed
the professional examination of the said post. On

¶54

19.10.2001 the petitioner was extended the

¶55

9 wp 11139.15

¶56

benefits of the permanency under the letter issued

¶57

by the Superintending Engineer of the Pradhikaran.

¶58

In the draft seniority list for the post of
Assistant Engineer (Civil) Grade II, the name of
the petitioner appeared at serial no. 225. For the
first time on 07.05.2002 show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner to the effect that the
post he was holding should be filled in by MPSC,

¶59

and as to why his services should not be
terminated. Similar show cause notices were also
issued to the some other candidates who filed Writ
Petitions at the Principal Seat at Bombay and at
Nagpur wherein directions were given to consider
their long standing services. Pursuant to the said
directions, the interviews were conducted through
MPSC of all these candidates including the
petitioner, and the petitioner and other
candidates were found eligible. The order was
issued on 12.07.2012 holding the petitioner and
the other 12 persons eligible for the post of
Assistant Engineer (Civil) Grade II and order to

¶60

10 wp 11139.15

¶61

that effect was also issued on 12.07.2012. The
name of the petitioner appeared at serial no. 2,
however, under order dated 16.07.2012 the name of
the petitioner was deleted on the ground that the
petitioner at the time of entry was over aged and
the petitioner stood reverted to the post of
Junior Engineer.

¶62

7.We fail to fathom the reasoning of the
respondent in reverting the petitioner. The
reasoning adopted by respondent no. 2 in not
considering the petitioner along with the other 12
candidates is that, the petitioner was over aged
at the time of entry in service.

¶63

8.We asked the learned counsel for respective
parties as to whether the maximum age limit for
the post of Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer
(Civil) Grade II is different. The answer was that
as per the Government Resolution dated 28.10.1992
maximum age for both the post is same i.e. 30
years. The petitioner is also held eligible by

¶64

11 wp 11139.15

¶65

respondent no. 2 to retain the post of Junior
Engineer and is not considered for the post of
Assistant Engineer (Civil) Grade II for the reason
that the petitioner is over aged. The ground
raised by the respondent does not stand to any
reason. The petitioner was appointed after
initiating the selection process for the post of
Assistant Engineer (Civil) Grade II considering
his age at that time. It is not the case of the
respondent that the petitioner had suppressed his
age or has misrepresented regarding his age at the
time of entry in service. The maximum age limit
for both theposts is the same. The petitioner had
also appeared for the interview conducted by the
MPSC under the directions of respondent no. 2.
The petitioner was held eligible by the MPSC upon
conducting the interview. The petitioner was also
granted permanency to the post of Assistant
Engineer (Civil) Grade II upon completion of the
probation period. Certificate to that effect is
also issued. It would appear that even in the

¶66

12 wp 11139.15

¶67

Government Resolution dated 17.08.2004 the maximum
age for appointment on the unreserved category is
increased to 33 years. The petitioner at the
relevant time was 31 years of age though the said
Government Resolution may not have retrospective
effect, however, considering the peculiar facts of
the case the same can be considered.

¶68

9.In view of the aforesaid facts and

¶69

circumstances and the appointment it appears that
the petitioner has been discriminated and has been
treated differently than the other 12 candidates.

¶70

10.In the light of above, the impugned order is
quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in
terms of prayer clause 'C'. The petitioner shall
be treated similarly as the other 12 candidates in
the order dated 12.07.2012 and 16.07.2012. The
petitioner shall be given the benefit of notional
increments, though we are not directing payment of
actual benefit to the petitioner for the post,
however, the said period shall be considered for

¶71

13 wp 11139.15

¶72

the purpose of notional increments and further
benefits.

¶73

11.Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of

¶74

in above terms. No costs.

¶75

[S. M. GAVHANE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶76

marathe

Shreeram Sopanrao Dikle v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shreeram Sopanrao Dikle v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Balkrishna Sarandghar and Anr. Vs the Collector, Ahmednagar and Ors.

Anand Kamlakar Samant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Uttam Dharma Koli Vs the Union of India and Others

Namdeo Dhondiba Shinde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bharat Damodhar Newasekar Vs the Union of India and Others

Ramgir Dattugir Giri Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others