Disposed

Pramod Namdeorao Lokhande v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC19 Sept 2019WP/7782/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a petitioner appointed on compassionate grounds to a lower post despite holding Class-III qualifications is entitled to be considered for promotion to Class-III upon vacancy, without disturbing existing Class-III staff.

What did the court decide?

The court directed the respondent management to consider the petitioner for promotion to the Class-III post as and when a vacancy exists.

Pramod Namdeorao Lokhande Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 56-WP-7782-18 & 7621-14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.7782 OF 2018

¶4

PRAMOD NAMDEORAO LOKHANDE ...PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

...RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. M.C. Syed, Advocate for Petitioners Mr. P.S. Patil, Additional Government Pleader for Respondents-State: Mr. L.H. Kawale, Advocate for Respondent No. 5

¶9

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7621 OF 2014

¶10

PRAMOD NAMDEORAO LOKHANDE ...PETITIONER

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Mr. M.C. Syed, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. P.S. Patil, Additional Government Pleader for Respondents-State Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent No. 3 Mr. S.S. Dambe, Advocate for Respondent No. 6

¶14

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND

¶15

ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

¶16

DATE : 19^th SEPTEMBER, 2019

¶17

2 56-WP-7782-18 & 7621-14

¶18

ORAL ORDER:

¶19

In writ petition No. 7621 of 2014, the petitioner seeks directions against the respondent to appoint the petitioner on ClassIII post i.e. Clerk in respondent No. 5 school. In writ petition No. 7782 of 2018, the petitioner is challenging the approval granted in favour of respondent No. 5 to the post of Junior Clerk.

¶20

Mr. Syed, the learned Counsel for petitioners submits that at the time, when the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground, the petitioner was eligible to be appointed on Class-III post. However, the vacancy at the relevant time was not available of Class-III Post, the petitioner was appointed on Class-IV post. Subsequently, the vacancy arose. However, instead of appointing petitioner on Class-III post, the management appointed the respondent No. 6 of writ petition No. 7782 of 2018 on Class-IV post. The same is illegal. The petitioner relies on the Government Resolution dated 31^st December, 2002, more particularly, clause 4 (d) of Annexure-A.

¶21

Mr. Suryawanshi, the learned Counsel for the institution submits that the petitioner did not submit the application for appointment on compassionate ground within the limitation. The father of the petitioner died in the year 1989. The application was made by the petitioner in 2004, still the management considered

¶22

3 56-WP-7782-18 & 7621-14 sympathetically the application of the petitioner. The appointment order of the petitioner did not suggest that the petitioner would subsequently be considered for the post of Junior Clerk as and when the vacancy would arise. The learned Counsel refers to clause 10 of the Annexure-A to the Government Resolution dated 31^st December, 2002.

¶23

We have considered the submissions. We are not entering to the dispute as to whether the application filed by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was within the limitation.

¶24

It is not disputed that at the time when the petitioner was appointed on Class-IV post, the petitioner was possessing the qualification to be appointed on Class-III post, but at the relevant time, the vacancy did not exist for Class-III post. As such, the petitioner was appointed as a Peon. It also appears that the petitioner went on hunger strike and because of that, management gave assurance to the petitioner that the petitioner would be considered in Class-III post, of course that was also an act of coercion on the part of the petitioner.

¶25

Clause 4(d) of Annexure-A to the Government Resolution dated 31^st December, 2002 would enure to the benefit of the petitioner. The candidate if was possessing the qualification to be appointed on Class-III post, and because of the unavailability of the

¶26

4 56-WP-7782-18 & 7621-14

¶27

post at the relevant time, he is appointed on Class-IV post, he can be considered for appointment on Class-III post as and when vacancy arises.

¶28

We are also not inclined to disturb the persons already working on Class-III post as on the date.

¶29

As and when the vacancy would exist for Class-III post, the respondent-management shall consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Class-III commensurate to his qualification.

¶30

With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.

¶31

[ ANIL S.KILOR ] [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶32

mta

Pramod Namdeorao Lokhande v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Namdeorao Lokhande 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

Mohan Narayan Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahanandabai Punjabrao Kokre and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ghanshyam Kisan Burhade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kishor Ranganathrao Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Komal Balaji Ullewar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhagwan Santoba Nandure Vs the Union of India and Others