Allowed

Suresh Mareppa Suryawanshi v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC23 Sept 2019WP/2205/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted relief to a petitioner appointed on compassionate grounds who completed the required qualification (MSCIT). The court quashed the termination order and directed reinstatement on the original post with continuity of service from the date of appointment but denied backwages.

What did the court decide?

Impugned termination order quashed; petitioner reinstated on original post before 01.10.2019 with continuity of service but without backwages.

Suresh Mareppa Suryawanshi Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 wp 2205.19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2205 OF 2019

¶4

SURESH MAREPPA SURYAWANSHI
VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

...

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Nagarkar Avinash M.
AGP for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. P. G. Borade
Advocate for Respondents No. 2 to 4 :
Mr. P. G. Rodge

¶8

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &

¶9

ANIL S. KILOR, JJ. DATE: 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2019

¶10

PER COURT:

¶11

1.The petitioner was appointed on compassionate
ground on Class-III post. The condition was
stipulated that the petitioner shall acquire the
qualification of MSCIT. The said condition was
incorporatedintheappointmentorder

¶12

dated 15.10.2015.

¶13

2.Mr. Nagarkar, learned counsel for the

¶14

petitioner submits that, though he was appointed
on Class-III post, he was assigned to do the work

¶15

2 wp 2205.19

¶16

of Class-IV viz. grazing cattles and alied works.

¶17

3.Mr. Rodge, learned counsel for respondnts no.
2 to 4 submits that the proposal was forwarded by
the University to the Government after the
petitioner completed his MSCIT, so as to reinstate
the petitioner, but the said proposal was
negatived by the Government.

¶18

4.It is not disputed by the respondents that
though the petitioner was appointed on Class-III
post, the petitioner was required to do the work
of Class-IV viz. Grazing the cattles and other
alied works. If the petitioner did not possess the
qualification of Class-III, he could have been
appointed on Class-IV post and practically the
petitioner was discharging the function of
Class-IV post.

¶19

5.The respondents are relying on the Government
Notification dated 28.05.2018, that if a person
fails to submit MSCIT within stipulated period,
then in that case his increment shall be withdrawn

¶20

3 wp 2205.19

¶21

and he shall not be considered for the promotion
and condition of removal from service is deleted.
The petitioner was terminated from service on
18.10.2017 i.e. prior to the said notification. It
is also submitted that the petitioner has passed
MSCITexaminationinFebruary/March-2018
i.e. prior to the Government Notification

¶22

dated 28.05.2018.

¶23

6.The petitioner was appointed on compassionate
ground. The petitioner has also passed MSCIT.
Considering nature of the work which were assigned
to the petitioner and the subsequent Government
Resolution, we are inclined to grant benefit of
the same to the petitioner, as it is submitted
that the benefit was given to the similarly
circumstanced persons.

¶24

7.In the light of that, impugned order of
termination is quashed and set aside. The
respondents shall reinstate the petitioner on its
original post. The petitioner will be entitled for

¶25

4 wp 2205.19

¶26

continuity in service. The petitioner shall be
reinstated on or before 01.10.2019. The petitioner
will not be entitled for backwages from the date
of termination till reinstatement.

¶27

8. Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶28

No costs.

¶29

[ANIL S. KILOR, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶30

marathe

Suresh Mareppa Suryawanshi v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Mareppa Suryawanshi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bibhishan Rajaram Shinde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Premraj Murlidhar Shinde and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sudam Gopinath Shinde and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhagwan Sakharamji Purne Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Aftab Ahmed Shaikh Akhlaq Ahmed Shaikh Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Land Record and Others

Vishnu Mahadeo Shelar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others