Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary, Public Works Deptt., Mantralaya, Mumbai. v. Muneshwar Shyamrao Ramteke

Bombay HC21 Nov 2024WP/1921/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired PWD typists challenged refusal to absorb them into the unified 'Clerk-cum-Typist' cadre created by Government Resolution dated 26/11/1990 despite a prior Tribunal order. The High Court held that under Clause 3(4), failure to submit an option results in deemed consent for absorption from 1/1/1986 or appointment date, and dismissed the writ petitions.

What the court decided

AI extract

The State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:12646-DB

¶2

-- 1 --

¶3

WP 1905.2024 + 1 (J).odt

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1905 OF 2024

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32
2. Superintending Engineer–Cum– Co-ordinator, Public Works Circle Old Secretariat Building, Civil Lines, Nagpur.	.. Petitioners
3. Superintending Engineer–Cum– Co-ordinator, Public Works Circle, Chandrapur.
4. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Region, Bandhkam Sankul, Civil Lines, Nagpur Versus
1. Sau. Pradnya Prakashrao Shewalkar Age 62 years, Occ. Retired Typist, R/o.Plot No.40, Shesh Nagar, Nandanvan, Nagpur, Tah. & District – Nagpur
2. Sau. Mangala Hemant Chimote Age 60 years, Occ. Retired Typist, R/o Near Old Chitra Talkies, Chitnis Park, Mahal, Nagpur.	.. Respondents
3. Sau. Shraddha Shrikant Aloni, Age 59 years, Occ. Retired Typist, R/o.“Shraddha”, 90, Jambudeep Nagar, Ayodhya Nagar, Nagpur – 24
4. Krishna s/o Vithobaji Hirde Age 60 years, Occ. Retired Typist, R/o. Plot No.377, Ganesh Nagar, Near Sangam Talkies, Nagpur.

¶7

PAGE 1 OF 11

¶8

-- 2 --

¶9

WP 1905.2024 + 1 (J).odt

¶10

5. Jayant s/o Gajanan Arewar Age 59 years, Occ. Retired Typist, R/o. F-5, Krushnagiri Apartment, Akashwani Road, Chandrapur, Tah. & District – Chandrapur.
6. Smt. Shubhangi Shrikant Bongirwar Age 59 years, Occ. Retired Typist, R/o.Hanuman Nagar, Tukum, Chandrapur, Tah. & District – Chandrapur.
7. Sau. Manda Sudhakar Kawale, Age 62 years, Occ. Retired Typist, R/o. Jail Road, Chandrapur, Tah. & District – Chandrapur.	.. Respondents
8. Shri Sharad Purushottam Narelwar Age 63 years, Occ. Retired Typist, R/o. Dhanlaxmi Apartment, Ganj Ward, Chandrapur, Tah. & District – Chandrapur
9. Smt. Meenakshi w/o Naresh Borkar Age 61 years, Occ. Retired Typist, R/o. Bharat Nagar, Nagpur, Tah. & District – Nagpur.

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO. 1921 OF 2024

¶12

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32
2. Superintending Engineer – Cum – Co-ordinator, Public Works Circle Old Secretariat Building, Civil Lines, Nagpur.	.. Petitioners
3. Superintending Engineer – Cum – Co-ordinator, Public Works Circle, Chandrapur.
4. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Region, Bandhkam Sankul Civil Lines, Nagpur

¶13

PAGE 2 OF 11

¶14

-- 3 --

¶15

WP 1905.2024 + 1 (J).odt

¶16

Versus

¶17

1. Muneshwar s/o Shyamrao Ramteke Age 57 years, Occ. Typist, R/o. Nanibag, Ward No.1, Near Goverdhan Building, Chandrapur.

¶18

2. Ku. Nisha Prabhakar Pattewale, Age 56 years, Occ. Typist, R/o. Vitthal Mandir, Ward No.2, Chandrapur.

¶19

3. Sau. Chandrakala Rajendra Anfat, Age 57 years, Occ. Typist, R/o. 183, Ward No.3, Sudampuri, Shitalsingh Marg, Wardha.

¶20

.. Respondents

¶21

Mr. Uday Dastane, Assistant Government Pleader for petitioners. Mr. Ganesh Khanzode, Advocate for respondents

¶22

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

¶23

RESERVED ON : SEPTEMBER 02, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON : NOVEMBER 21, 2024

¶24

JUDGMENT (Per : Abhay J. Mantri, J.)

¶25

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally

¶26

by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶27

(2) Both these petitions arising out of the impugned common

¶28

judgment and order dated 12/04/2023, passed by the Maharashtra

¶29

Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur (for short- the ‘ MAT ’) in O.A. Nos.935/2021 and 936/2021, thereby allowed the applications of the

¶30

PAGE 3 OF 11

¶31

-- 4 -- WP 1905.2024 + 1 (J).odt

¶32

respondents herein i.e. original applicants that they are entitled to absorb unified cadre of ‘Clerk-cum-Typist’ in terms of Government Resolution dated 26/11/1990 from the date of appointment as ‘Typist’. Hence, the original respondents prefer this petition.

¶33

(3) All the original applicants in both the original applications are claiming the same relief in both the petitions; therefore, both the applications were decided by the common judgment and order, which is impugned herein, and as such, both the petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

¶34

(4) The facts in brief are as under :-

¶35

The respondents herein are the original applicants who came to be appointed to the post of ‘Typist’ against the clear and permanent vacancies after following the due procedure for selection. On 26/11/1990, the Government of Maharashtra issued a Resolution by which a unified post/cadre ‘Clerk-cum-Typist’ came to be created and abolished the cadre of ‘Typist’. As per the terms of the Government Resolution, all such ‘Typists’ were directed to be absorbed, and pay fixation accordingly in the cadre of ‘Clerk-cum-Typist’ was to be done. However, the petitioners herein did not grant the said benefit to the ‘Typists’ who were working under petitioner Nos.2 and 3 despite the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.745/2014. The respondents have not

¶36

PAGE 4 OF 11

¶37

-- 5 -- WP 1905.2024 + 1 (J).odt

¶38

been granted the benefit of ‘Typist’ as per the said Government Resolution, observing that the original applicants had not submitted their options within 60 days of the said Government Resolutions. Therefore, the respondents/original applicants were constrained to approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur, challenging the said communications.

¶39

(5) After considering the rival claims of the parties and Government Resolution dated 26/11/1990 and documents on record, the Tribunal allowed both the applications and thereby set aside the communications dated 19/11/2020 and 21/12/2020 and held that the respondents/original applicants are entitled to be absorbed in the unified cadre on ‘Clerk-cum-Typist’ in terms of Government Resolution dated 26/11/1990 from the date of their appointment as ‘Typist’. Hence, this petition.

¶40

(6) Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioners vehemently contended that the respondents/original applicants have not submitted their options within the stipulated period and, therefore, they are not entitled to seek the benefit of the said Government Resolution. The learned Tribunal has not considered the said aspect and erred in allowing the applications. He also canvassed that some respondents/original applicants had already retired from the service.

¶41

PAGE 5 OF 11

¶42

-- 6 --

¶43

WP 1905.2024 + 1 (J).odt

¶44

Therefore, they are not entitled to get the benefit under the said Government Resolution. Lastly, he submitted that the respondents benefitted from the higher pay scale of ‘Typist’ without discharging the additional duties and responsibilities of the ‘Clerk-cum-Typist’. However, at the end of their tenure, they moved this application to get the benefit of the latter post; therefore, the respondents/original applicants are not entitled to the benefit under the Government Resolution dated 26/11/1990. Hence, he submitted that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the applications without considering the terms mentioned in the said Government Resolution and, therefore, said order is not sustainable in the eyes of the law and urged for allowing the petition.

¶45

(7) Per contra , learned Counsel for the respondents have submitted that based on the said Government Resolution, the respondents are entitled to be absorbed in the cadre of ‘Clerk-cumTypist’, though they have not submitted their options pursuant to the said Government Resolution within the stipulated time. He further drew our attention to the decision passed in O.A.745/2014 and submitted that in view of the decision, the respondents are also entitled to be absorbed in the unified cadre of ‘Clerk-cum-Typist’. Hence, the impugned order is just and proper, and no interference is required. As such, he urges the dismissal of the petition.

¶46

PAGE 6 OF 11

¶47

-- 7 -- WP 1905.2024 + 1 (J).odt

¶48

(8) We have appreciated the rival contentions of the parties. Perused the impugned order, Government Resolution dated 26/11/1990 and the record. For the sake of convenience, we would like to produce the service details of the respondents/original applicants (page 106) as under :-

¶49

Sr. No.	Name of Applicants	Date of Appointment	Date of Retirement	Date of Giving option as per G.R. dated 26/11/1990
1	Smt.Pradhnya Shewalkar	01/07/1987	30/08/2016	No option given
2	Smt. Mangala Chimote	28/05/1990	30/09/2019	03/03/2014
3	Smt.Shradha Aloni	22/11/1983	31/12/2020	30/01/1991
4	Shri Krushna Hirde	19/11/1983	30/01/2020	25/01/1991
5	Shri Jayant Arewar	29/04/1993	31/08/2021	15/03/2014
6	Smt.Shubhangi Bogirwar	19/10/1984	31/12/2024	16/01/2024
7	Smt. Manda Kawale	28/05/1990	30/10/2016	No option given
8	Shri Sharad Neralwar	11/11/1982	30/06/2015	No option given
9	Smt. Minakshi Borkar	09/02/1984	31/12/2018	No option given

¶50

(9) The short question that arises before us is “whether the respondents/original applicants are entitled to absorb in the cadre of ‘Clerk-cum-Typist’ based on the Government Resolution dated 26/11/1990 or not ?”

¶51

PAGE 7 OF 11

¶52

-- 8 -- WP 1905.2024 + 1 (J).odt

¶53

(10) The learned Counsel for both the parties have relied upon

¶54

said Government Resolution and, more particularly, Clause 3, which reads thus:-

¶55

^^3- la;qDr laoxkZe/;s lekfo”V gks.;klkBh fodYi %

¶56

¼1½ ‘kklu vlsgh vkns’k nsr vkgs dh] ts Vadys[kd ;k vkns’kkP;k fnukadkl :-290&540 ¼:-975&1660 lq/kkjhr½ ;k osruJs.khe/;s osru ?ksr vkgsr] R;kauk oj uewj dsysY;k fyihd&Vadys[kd ;k la;qDr laoxkZr ;ko;kps fdaok dls ;kcn~nypk fodYi vuqKs; jkghy- v’kk Vadys[kdkauk fnukad 01&01&1986 iklwu fdaok T;kauh :-290&540 ;k osruJs.khe/;s T;k fnukadkiklwu ;s.;kpk ;kiwohZ fodYi fnyk vlsy rks fnukad] vFkok T;kaph fu;qDrh :-290&540 ;kp osruJs.khe/;s >kyh vkgs] R;kaP;k ckcrhr R;kaP;k v’kk fu;qDrhpk fnukad] ;kiSdh tks uarjpk vlsy] R;k fnukadkiklwu oj uewn dsysY;k la;qDr laoxkZe/;s ;s.;kph R;kauk eqHkk jkghy-

¶57

¼2½ lacaf/kr Vadys[kdkauh ;kckcrpk fodYi] gs vkns’k fuxZfer gks.;kP;k fnukadkiklwu 60 fnolkaP;k vkr lacaf/kr vf/kdk&;kadMs |kok-

¶58

¼3½ ,dnk fnysyk fodYi vafre jkghy-

¶59

¼4½ T;k Vadys[kdkadMwu fofgr eqnrhe/;s vlk fodYi feG.kkj ukgh] R;kauh fnukad 1 tkusokjh 1986 fdaok :-290&540 gh osruJs.kh R;kauh T;k fnukadkiklwu ?ksryh vlsy( vFkok R;k osruJs.khe/;s R;kaph T;k fnukadkiklwu fu;qDrh >kyh vlsy ;kiSdh tks uarjpk vlsy] R;k fnukadkiklwu la;qDr laoxkZr ;s.;kpk fodYi fnyk vkgs] vls eku.;kr ;sbZy o R;kuqlkj R;kauk la;qDr laoxkZr lekfo”V dsys tkbZy-

¶60

_¼5½ ;kckcrpk |ko;kpk fodYi lkscr tksMysY;k ueqU;kizek.ks ns.;kr ;kok-_**

¶61

PAGE 8 OF 11

¶62

-- 9 --

¶63

WP 1905.2024 + 1 (J).odt

¶64

(11) As per Sub-Clause (4) of Clause 3, it is incumbent on the petitioners to implement the absorption process, though the employees failed to submit their options. As per the Government Resolution, all the employees are entitled to be absorbed in the cadre of ‘Clerk-cumTypist’ from 1^st January 1986 or their respective dates of appointments, whichever is later. The petitioners cannot say that the respondents/original applicants have not submitted their options within the stipulated period. Hence, they are not entitled to the absorption at the belated stage.

¶65

(12) Learned Assistant Government Pleader has relied upon the following judgments:-

¶66

1. Govind Kondiba Tanpure vs. State of Maharashtra 2024 SCC ONLINE BOM 2540

¶67

2. Union of India vs. N. Murugesan (2022) 2 SCC 25

¶68

3. Kerala Public Commission vs. K.N.Radhamani (2021) 15 Supreme Court 501

¶69

4. S.S.Balu vs. State of Kerala (2009) 2 SCC 479

¶70

5. Bhoop Singh vs. Union of India (1992) 3 SCC 136

¶71

6. P.S.Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1975) 1 SCC 152

¶72

7. Raja Jagdambika Pratap Narain Singh vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and others (1975) 4 SCC 578

¶73

PAGE 9 OF 11

¶74

-- 10 -- WP 1905.2024 + 1 (J).odt

¶75

(13) A plain reading of Sub Clause (4) of Clause 3 of the said Government Resolution reveals that the concerned employees have to submit their options within 60 days from the date of the Government Resolution. If the concerned employees have failed to submit an option for their absorption in time, then it shall be deemed that they have been given such option for their absorption in the said cadre from 01/01/1986 or from the date of their appointment, whichever is later. As such, for the employees who have not been given their options, it is evident from the said Government Resolution that all the employees have to be absorbed in the cadre of ‘Clerk-cum-Typist’. Therefore, we do not find substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners in that regard.

¶76

(14) Perused the order in O.A.No.745/2014 on which the respondents are relying, it seems that the Tribunal has rightly interpreted the clauses in Government Resolution and held that the applicants therein are entitled to be absorbed in the unified cadre of ‘Clerk-cum-Typist’. The petitioners have not claimed that they have challenged the said orders or that the order is reversed, and therefore, in our view, the mandate laid down in the said order was binding on the petitioners. They ignored that mandate and issued impugned communications dated 19/11/2020 and 21/12/2020 on that ground alone, and the impugned communications are liable to be set aside.

¶77

PAGE 10 OF 11

¶78

-- 11 -- WP 1905.2024 + 1 (J).odt

¶79

(15) The Tribunal, having considered the clauses in the Government Resolution and the mandate laid down in the decision in O.A.No.745/2014, has rightly passed the impugned order. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. On the contrary, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are well reasoned, and as such, no interference is required in it. In the aforesaid background, we deem it appropriate to dismiss the petition. As such, the petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶80

Rule is discharged.

¶81

[ ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ]

¶82

[ NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. ]

¶83

KOLHE

¶84

PAGE 11 OF 11

The State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary, Public Works Deptt., Mantralaya, Mumbai. v. Muneshwar Shyamrao Ramteke

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary, Public Works Deptt., Mantralaya, Mumbai. v. Muneshwar Shyamrao Ramteke

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

M/S Associated Constructions, Partnership Firm, Thr. Authorized Partner, Aji Mathew Thomas Mathew Vs Vidarbha Irrigation Dev. Corporation Thr. Executive Director, Nagpur and Ors.

Shubham Vijay Bagde Vs the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Thr. Member Secy.

Juhi Umeshrao Gajapure Vs Nagarjuna Institute of Technology and Management, Thr. Principal and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretay, Public Works Dept. Mumbai and Ors. Vs Sau. Pradnya Prakashrao Shewalkar and Others

Ansh S/O Kiran Gharat Vs the Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Thr. Its Member Sec. Nagpur

Miss. Shweta D/O. Raju Amnerkar and Others vs the S. T. Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Thr. Vice Chairman, Nagpur