Allowed

Dinkar Onkar Jadhav and Others v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Water Supply, Sanitation Dept. Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC23 Feb 2021WP/7288/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay quashed the orders of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in a writ petition concerning higher pay scale claims by former drivers. It directed remand for factual enquiry into the nature of the posts offered and issues of alleged discrimination.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of the Tribunal dated 19/3/2018 and 15/6/2017 quashed and set aside. Original Application No.829/2011 restored to file for remand

Dinkar Onkar Jadhav and Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

2302wp7288.19

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.7288 OF 2019

¶5

Dinkar Onkar Jadhav and another ... Petitioners - Versus -

¶6

State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents

¶7

Shri S.U. Bhuyar, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶8

Shri A.M. Deshpande, Additional Government Pleader for Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ. DATE : 23 FEBRUARY 2021

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶12

The Petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur on 15 June 2017 dismissing the Original Application filed by the Petitioners and on 19 March 2018 rejecting the Review Application filed by the Petitioners.

¶13

1. The Petitioners were appointed on the posts of Driver in

¶14

2 2302wp7288.19

¶15

the Earth Water Survey and Development Department of the State of Maharashtra sometime in the year 1974. The Petitioner No.1 superannuated on 31 May 2011 and the Petitioner No.2 superannuated on 30 October 2009. The Petitioners filed an Original Application in the Tribunal bearing No.829/2011 seeking higher pay scale from 1 October 1994. The Petitioners sought a declaration to that effect from the Tribunal. The claim for higher pay scale was based on the Circulars issued by the State Government informing Group “C” employees in respect of promotional benefits.

¶16

The Tribunal referring to the fact that the Petitioners were offered promotion to the post of Air Compressor Driver on 29 April 1988, which they refused and as per the Government Resolutions dated 8 June 1995 and 1 November 2008 they relinquished their claim to the time bound promotion, dismissed the Original Application by the impugned order dated 15 June 2017. The Petitioners filed a Review Application on 24 July 2017, which was rejected by the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 19 March 2018.

¶17

As regards the letter written by the Petitioners, based upon which the Tribunal has negatived the claim of the Petitioners, Shri Bhuyar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submits that

¶18

3 2302wp7288.19

¶19

this will not be a refusal to accept promotion as what was offered was not promotion in the first place. Two contentions were taken in the Review Application – firstly, there is no promotion from the post of Driver to the post of Air Compressor Driver, which can be seen from the fact that same pay scale is applied to both the posts and the work of Air Compressor Driver is only a different specialised work and secondly, one Air Compressor Driver, who had also refused to hold the said post, was given the benefit of higher pay scale and, therefore, there is a discrimination.

¶20

1. According to us, these two points go to the root of the case as if the Petitioners are to be non-suited on the ground that they had refused promotion, the Tribunal will have to consider whether there is a promotion from the post of Light Motor Vehicle Driver to the post of Air Compressor Driver. For that purpose, factual enquiry will have to be made. Factual enquiry will also have to be made in respect of charge of discrimination. Therefore, the matter will have to be remanded to the Tribunal to carry out these enquiries and take a decision as per law.

¶21

1. In the circumstances, the impugned orders dated 19/3/2018 and 15/6/2017 passed by the Tribunal are quashed and set aside. Original Application bearing No.829/2011 stands

¶22

4 2302wp7288.19

¶23

restored to the file of the Tribunal. The Petitioners will appear before the Tribunal on 8 March 2021 when further date would be assigned. Subject to workload and earlier time bound commitments, the Tribunal will consider taking up the restored application at the earliest.

¶24

Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶25

(ANIL S. KILOR, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

¶26

khj

¶27

Kamal Digitally signedby Kamal Jeswani Date: 2021.03.01 14:17:15 +0530 Jeswani

Dinkar Onkar Jadhav and Others v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Water Supply, Sanitation Dept. Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinkar Onkar Jadhav and Others v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Water Supply, Sanitation Dept. Mumbai 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

Mangesh S/O Sanjay Kanoje Vs Schedule Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati through Member Secretary and Another

Mayuri D/O Vijayrao Bhamkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Nitin S/O Keshaorao Darvekar and Others Vs Mamta Co-Operative Housing Society, through Its Secretary, Shri Narendra R. Tupkar and Others

Sunil Chandrashekhar Akant Vs the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpurand Others

Magasvargiya Education Society, a Registered Society (F496), Thr. Secretary, Yavatmal and Another Vs State of Maha., Thr. Principal Sec., Social Justice and Special Assistance Deptt., Mumbai and Ors.

Radha Ispat through Its Proprietor Shri Sudhar Ishwardayal Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary (Administration) Govt of Maharashtra, Mumbai