Petitioners challenged the withdrawal of a 3/8 scheme benefit for promotion. The court held the scheme violated the Maharashtra Jeevan Authority Act and dismissed the petition.
Writ petition dismissed and rule discharged; benefits under Government Resolution dated 26 June 2007 not restored.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
205-WP-1934-2008.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1934 OF 2008
205-WP-1934-2008.odt
2
PETITIONERS
- Versus -
RESPONDENTS
Mr. K.S. Chiwarkar, Advocate holding for Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. N.S. Rao, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1/ State. Mr. D.M. Kakani, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ. DATE : 10 MARCH 2022
3 205-WP-1934-2008.odt
: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
By this petition, the Petitioners are challenging the order dated 28 April 2008 passed by the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran pursuant to the impugned Government Resolution dated 11 April 2008.
4 205-WP-1934-2008.odt
Resolution dated 11 April 2008, the Resolution dated 26 June 2007 was cancelled with retrospective effect and the benefit of 3/8 scheme for promotion to the post of ‘Assistant Engineer (Grade-II)’ was retrospectively sought to be withdrawn.
5 205-WP-1934-2008.odt
filed challenging the benefits given to the Diploma holder Engineers like the Petitioners in promotion by the Degree holder Engineers, and it is because of the pendency of these petitions the scheme was sought to be withdrawn. It was also sought to be contended that there is no question of appointment of the Petitioners through the consultation of Maharashtra Public Service Commission. It was also contended that the provisions of the Act of 1976, more particularly Section 8(1) thereof, cannot be made applicable to the Petitioners' case, as this provision is for entry in service and not for further promotions. Therefore, it was contended that there is no reason whatsoever for withdrawal of benefits conferred, and the action being arbitrary, the same be setaside and the benefits given to the Petitioners under the Government Resolution dated 26 June 2007, be restored.
6 205-WP-1934-2008.odt
The reply affidavit is also filed on behalf of the State, taking an identical stand.
7 205-WP-1934-2008.odt
perusal of the order would show that in this case, the promotion orders of the petitioners therein, who were working with the Respondent – Pradhikaran as similarly situated as the present Petitioners were cancelled. The Division Bench noted that the promotions were issued without complying with the requirement of Section 8-1(A) of the Act of 1976, which requires consultation with the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, and therefore, the Division Bench declined to interfere with the order cancelling the promotions. We have not been shown that this order has been challenged or reversed. The Division Bench treated these promotions governed by Section 8-1(A) of the Act of 1976. This decision supports the stand of the Respondent – Board and the State Government that the Government Resolution dated 26 June 2007, being contrary to Section 8-1(A) of the Act of 1976, was withdrawn.
8 205-WP-1934-2008.odt
not already taken the steps, the Government would proceed further on those lines as communicated by the Division Bench.
No costs.
(ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)
(NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
Sumit
Digitally signed bySUMIT CHETAN AGRAWAL Signing Date:22.03.2022 10:48
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a Government Resolution conferring promotion benefits on diploma holders contrary to statutory recruitment rules can be enforced via writ.
Whether Section 8(1) of the Maharashtra Jeevan Authority Act, 1976 mandates compliance with Maharashtra Public Service Commission consultation for promotion.
Whether the withdrawal of a government scheme violating statutory provisions was legally correct.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hemant Rajabhau Vidhate & Ors. Vs. The Principal Secretary, Water Supply and Sewerage Dept. Mantralaya & Ors.Referred¶42
Hemant Rajabhau Vidhate & Ors. Vs. The Principal Secretary, Water Supply and Sewerage Dept. Mantralaya & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 2100/2008)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raju
Chandrasekhar
State of Maharashtra
Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran
Nitin Jamdar
Anil L. Pansare
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
