Disposed

Sachin Krishna Jadhav v. the President Apang Purnarvasan Santha and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Mar 2024WP/419/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Caretaker's appeal against termination was transferred by the appellate authority to the District Social Welfare Officer on the ground of administrative approval powers under the 2018 Code. The High Court held the transfer unjustified, quashed the order and directed the appellate authority to decide the termination appeal afresh on merits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 17 March 2023 quashed; respondent No.4 directed to decide the appeal afresh on merits after hearing both sides, within three months from appearance on 18 March 2024; no costs.

Sachin Krishna Jadhav Vs the President Apang… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

23-wp419-2024.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.419 OF 2024

¶5

ATUL GANESH KULKARNI

¶6

Digitally signed by ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date: 2024.03.07 14:56:58 +0530

¶7

Sachin Krishna Jadhav… Petitioner
V/s.
The President, Apang Punarvasan
Sanstha & Ors.… Respondents

¶8

Mr. Padmanabh D. Pise with Ms. Sejal A. Hariyan i/by
P. Padmanabh Associates for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni i/by Mr. Akshay Kulkarni for
respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶10

CORAM:AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶11

DATED:MARCH 7, 2024

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1.Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 30
January 2024 passed by respondent No.5 confirming order dated
17 March 2023 passed by respondent No.4 on the ground that
respondent No.4 had no power to decide appeal against
termination of petitioner’s service.

¶14

2.The petitioner was appointed as Caretaker in respondent
No.1/School on 18 December 2002. Respondent No.3 granted
approval to his appointment. On 16 October 2017, respondent
No.1 issued show-cause notice to the petitioner as to why his
services should not be terminated. The petitioner on 21 October
2017 filed his reply. On 2 November 2017 respondent No.1
terminated petitioner’s services.

¶15

¶16

23-wp419-2024.doc

¶17

3.Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed Appeal No.18 of 2019
before respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 by the impugned order
dated 17 March 2023 transferred the appeal to the District Social
Welfare Officer mainly on the ground that as per Government
Resolution dated 18 August 2018 in relation to the Maharashtra
Handicapped Special School and Training Centre Code, 2018 it is
District Social Welfare Officer who is conferred with power of
granting administrative approval to Class-IV employees.

¶18

4.On perusal of the order, it appears that the grievance of the
petitioner was in relation to termination of his services. Based on
the 2018 Code, respondent No.4 is the authority to consider
challenge to the order of termination of the employees governed
by the 2018 Code. The issue raised before respondent No.4 was
not in relation to grant or refusal of administrative approval but it
was in relation to the termination of service. Therefore, respondent
No.4 ought to have decide the appeal on merits.

¶19

5.It needs to be noted that the petitioner on wrong advise had
filed appeal challenging order of respondent No.4. However, such
appeal was not maintainable. Hence, the order passed by the
Appellate Authority is of no consequence. Hence, following order:

¶20

a)Impugned order dated 17 March 2023 is quashed and
set aside;

¶21

b)Respondent No.4 shall decide petitioner’s appeal afresh
on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides;
c)Parties shall appear before respondent No.4 on 18
March 2024;

¶22

¶23

23-wp419-2024.doc

¶24

d) Considering the fact that the petitioner filed appeal in 2017, respondent No.4 shall decide the appeal within three months from the date of appearance of parties.

¶25

6.The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. No
costs.

¶26

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶27

Sachin Krishna Jadhav v. the President Apang Purnarvasan Santha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Krishna Jadhav v. the President Apang Purnarvasan Santha and Ors.

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

Sadashiv Gajanan Kulkarni (Bhingare) and Ors. Vs Mahadev Vithoba Nikam

Shree Brahmanath Devasthan Unchgaon through Trustee R.S.Zurale Vs the Joint Charity Commissioner Kolhapur

Mr. Ganesh Haribhau More and Ors. Vs Mr. Krushna Laxman Kadam and Ors.

Balaji Spinning and Weaving Mill Vs Shri. Savarappa Hanmantu Kenchanal

Shri. Subhash Shripat Khamkar and Ors. Vs for Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation , through Its Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Nateshwar Raghunath Shirdhankar Vs for Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation , through Its Secretary and Ors.