Dismissed¶27

State of Maharashtra, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mumbai Thr. Its Secy. and Ors. v. Neeraj S/O Nandkishor Sharma

Bombay HC10 Feb 2025WP/6961/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P. No.6961/2024, Nagpur Bench; State of Maharashtra (Medical Education & Drugs Dept., Directorate of Ayurved, Dean Govt. Ayurved Hospital Nagpur) v. Neeraj Nandkishor Sharma; Industrial Court order upheld, writ dismissed; Museum Keeper absorption Group 'C'; pay scale after twelve years' service; Laboratory Assistant scale; Technician higher payscale Exh. U-41; pay band Rs.9300-34,800 Grade Pay Rs.4200; Directorate of Ayush recommendation; communication dated 02/06/2018 excluded (issued during pendency); College and Hospital one entity admission; no rebuttal evidence by State; neutral citation 2025:BHC-NAG:3216.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioners; the learned Industrial Court's judgment allowing the complainant's complaint stands undisturbed. ¶27

State of Maharashtra, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mumbai Thr. Its Secy. and Ors. vs Neeraj S/O Nandkishor Sharma — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioners; the learned Industrial Court's judgment allowing the complainant's complaint stands undisturbed.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of the learned Industrial Court allowing the complainant's complaint (pay-scale/promotion benefits) warranted interference in this writ petition. +2 more

¶16

Court's answer

The learned Industrial Court had taken into consideration all the contentions raised in this petition.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The various documents relied upon by the complainant were duly considered by the learned Industrial Court.

¶20

Key takeaways

The petitioners failed to lead any evidence to rebut the case of the complainant.ratio¶21
Similarly situated employees had been granted promotion and the Laboratory Assistant pay scale after completion of twelve years' service, and Exh. U-41 showed conferral of higher pay scale on other employees for the Technician post.ratio¶21
The complainant's own service record (page 92 of a document filed with the reply) specifically recorded that he was granted pay scale after twelve years of service.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (M.S. Jawalkar, J.; 25/03/2025) [2025:BHC-NAG:3216] dismisses Writ Petition No.6961/2024 filed by the State of Maharashtra (Medical Education & Drugs Department, Directorate of Ayurved, Dean Govt. Ayurved Hospital, Nagpur) against an Industrial Court judgment allowing the complaint of Neeraj s/o Nandkishor Sharma, absorbed as a Museum Keeper in Group 'C', claiming pay-scale/promotion benefits. Held: the Industrial Court weighed all contentions and documents, including the Dean's recommendation for pay band Rs.9300-34,800 with Grade Pay Rs.4200; similarly situated employees received promotion and the Laboratory Assistant scale after twelve years' service and Exh. U-41 recorded higher scale for Technicians; the State led no rebuttal evidence and its own service record (page 92) noted grant of scale after twelve years; the College-Hospital separate-entity plea was defeated by the State's earlier admission and had not been raised before the Industrial Court; a communication dated 02/06/2018 first produced during the writ petition, having originated during pendency, was excluded. Petition dismissed.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:3216

¶2

wp 6962-2024.odt 1/5

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.6961/2024

¶6

State of Maharashtra Medical Education & Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. Through its Secretary

¶7

The Director, Directorate of Ayurved, Govt. Dental College and Hospital Building, Fourth Floor St. George Hospital Premises, P.D. Dernalo Road, Fort, Mumbai-01.

¶8

The Dean, Govt. Ayurved Hospital Sakkardara Square, Umred Road, Raje Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur-24.

¶9

... PETITIONERS

¶10

...VERSUS… Neeraj S/o Nandkishor Sharma Aged about 47 years, Occ: service, R/o. Plot No. 16, Swarkapuri Layout, Rameshwari Nagar, Nagpur-27. ... RESPONDENT

¶11

wp 6962-2024.odt 2/5

¶12

Ms D.I. Charlewar, AGP for petitioners/State Shri S.D. Shukla, Advocate for respondent

¶13

CORAM : SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J. DATE : 25/03/2025

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶15

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the respondent.

¶16

On the last date of hearing this Court was about to dismiss the petition. However, at the request of learned Assistant Government Pleader, time was granted by way of last chance. Today also, no any channel of promotion is placed on record. On perusal of judgment of learned Industrial Court, it appears that the learned Industrial Court taken into consideration all the contentions raised in this petition.

¶17

The contention of the respondent is that complainant was appointed as a Museum Keeper, by way of absorption which

¶18

wp 6962-2024.odt 3/5

¶19

come under group ‘C’. It is admitted fact that the complainant examined himself, however, his cross was not conducted and no cross order came to be passed.

¶20

The complainant has relied on various documents, those are duly considered by the learned Industrial Court. He also considered the recommendation moved by respondent No.3/ Dean to Directorate of Ayush, Mumbai, to place the complainant in pay band of Rs.9300-34,800/- with Grade-Pay of Rs.4200/- and requested to pass appropriate order.

¶21

The learned Industrial Court also take a note of the fact that similarly situated employees have been granted promotion and given pay scale of Laboratory Assistant after completion of twelve years of service. Document at Exh. U-41 shows that the higher payscale is conferred on other employees for the post of Technician. The petitioner herein failed to lead any evidence to rebut the case of the complainant or to substantiate their contentions that Circular/Government Resolutions produced on record are not applicable to his case and how the case of the other employees to

¶22

wp 6962-2024.odt 4/5

¶23

whom benefit is granted were different from the case of the complainant. This petition is filed after near about one and half year after passing of the order. Apart from this, document filed along with reply by the present respondent shows that in service record, it is specifically mentioned (page 92) that he was granted pay scale after twelve years of his service.

¶24

It is the contention of the petitioner that College and Hospital are the different entities, however, looking to the reply filed by the petitioner herein, before the Industrial Court, they had admitted that it is one and the same entity, moreover this ground was not raised before the Industrial Court. Petitioners/State also placed on record the communication dated 02/06/2018, it was not placed before the Industrial Court. However, it cannot be considered at this stage, specifically when the said communication is issued during the pendancy of matter before the Industrial Court.

¶25

In my considered opinion, there was no reason to appoint complainant as a Museum Keeper in absence of abolition of post which complainant was holding. The learned Industrial Court

¶26

wp 6962-2024.odt 5/5

¶27

rightly appreciated the facts and allowed the complaint. I do not see any reason to interfere in the well reasoned order in view of supporting documents. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.

¶28

(SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

¶29

Jayashree..

State of Maharashtra, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mumbai Thr. Its Secy. and Ors. v. Neeraj S/O Nandkishor Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maharashtra, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mumbai Thr. Its Secy. and Ors. v. Neeraj S/O Nandkishor Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Adv. Ghanshyam Rajendra Dhole vs Shri. Saurabh Katiyar, District Collector, Amravati

Meenatai W/O Dadarao Uike vs the Collector, Akola and Others

Siddharth S/O Sahdeo Sirsat vs Asma W/O Siddharth Sirsat and Another

Nilkanth Bapurao Katre and Others Vs Raj Associates, a Partner Firm by Its Partner Nazar Ali S/O Akbar Ali Bhopal Wala and Others

Shiraz S/O. Khurshedji Doongaji and Another vs Jehangir S/O. Khurshedji Doongaji

Shamimbi W/O Shaikh Faizal Vs Shaikh Iftekar S/O Shaikh Jabbar and Others