Dismissed

Suryakant Ramchandra Ujlamkar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Sept 2019WP/2971/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court bench dismissed a writ petition seeking time bound promotion benefit. The court held that since the adverse A.C.R. grading for years prior to the Supreme Court's U.P. Jal Nigam judgment had already been entered, the petitioner could not claim the benefit of that precedent to reopen his barred claim. The petition was dismissed on merits.

What the court decided

AI extract

Suryakant Ramchandra Ujlamkar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(( 1 ))

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2971 OF 2008

¶4

Suryakant s/o Ramchandra Ujlamkar

¶5

… PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & ors.

¶8

… RESPONDENTS

¶9

Shri M.K. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner Shri S.B. Yawalkar, A.G.P. for State Shri B.R. Survase, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3

¶10

CORAM: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, CJ & R.G. AVACHAT, J.

¶11

DATE: 24.09.2019

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

On 8.6.1995, a Government Resolution was issued

¶15

introducing a scheme known as time bound promotion scheme. It

¶16

was made applicable retrospectively from 1.10.1994. The scheme

¶17

(( 2 ))

¶18

was notified in view of non-availability of promotional posts; resulting in stagnation. As per the scheme, Government servants who had completed 12 years of service became entitled to be considered for time bound promotion, meaning thereby, if they achieved the benchmark prescribed to be promoted, in situ promotion, by placing them in higher pay-scale in the same post, was to be accorded.

¶19

Since the petitioner who had joined as a Senior Clerk in the year 1996 and has not earned a promotion had completed 12 years service as a Senior Clerk as on 1.10.1994, under the Government Resolution dated 8.6.1995 his case was considered for benefit under the time bound promotion. A.C.Rs. preceding five years were considered and in view of the fact that for the years 1989-1990 till the year 1993-1994 he was graded below B, promotion was denied on account of the petitioner not meeting the benchmark. His A.C.R. having improved thereafter and he having achieved the benchmark was granted the benefit of in situ promotion under the time bound promotion policy w.e.f. 1.4.1998.

¶20

(( 3 ))

¶21

The petitioner made representation that since the

¶22

below benchmark A.C.Rs. graded were not even conveyed to him

¶23

he was wrongly denied benefit from 1.10.1994. The representations went unheeded resulting in the petitioner approaching the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No.1658/2005, which has been dismissed

¶24

vide impugned order dated 10.7.2006. The claim has been rejected on merits as well as limitation.

¶25

We would prefer to deal with the reasoning of the Tribunal on merits.

¶26

Entries in the A.C.R. were construed as adverse in the

¶27

A.C.R. which ex-facie had an adverse impact upon the promotional avenue of the appraiser. For the first time in the case reported as (1996) 2 SCC 363 U.P. Jal Nigam & Ors. Vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain & Ors., the Supreme Court evolved the concept of a below benchmark A.C.R. grading required to be conveyed to the appraisee on the reasoning that though such A.C.R. are not ex-facie adverse, but consequences being adverse,

¶28

(( 4 ))

¶29

they ought to be treated as of a kind requiring communication to

¶30

the appraisee with right in the appraisee to submit a representations thereagainst which had to be decided.

¶31

In the instant case, as noted hereinabove, the below benchmark grading pertained to the year 1990-1991 and 19931994 i.e. much before the decision was pronounced by the Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam's case (supra).

¶32

Thus, we find no merit in the Writ Petition. It is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.

¶33

(R.G. AVACHAT, J.) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶34

fmp/-

Suryakant Ramchandra Ujlamkar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Suryakant Ramchandra Ujlamkar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gangadhar Maroti Ghule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Chandu Rajaram Tompe and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prabhakar Rukhmanrao Kulthe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaikh Fayyaz Ahmed Aziz Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanju Narayan Wendole Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Maroti Kishanrao Wadkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others