High Court
Facts
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD903 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11390 OF 2024 IN RAST/26108/2024THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSVERSUSRAMESH KASHINATHRAO HATTE AND ANR...Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, AGP for applicantsMr. T.M. Venjane, Advocate for respondent No.1Mr. V.S. Valse, Advocate for respondent No.2...904 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4904 OF 2024 IN RAST/8071/2024THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSVERSUSVIJAYKUMAR DHONDIBHAU SATPUTE AND ANR...Mr. A.R. Kale, AGP for applicantsMr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate for respondent No.1Mr. S.D. Kotkar, Advocate for respondent No.2...905 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11376 OF 2024 IN RAST/26361/2024THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSVERSUSMADHUKAR MANIKRAO PATIL AND ANOTHER...Mr. A.R. Kale, AGP for applicantsMr. T.M. Venjane, Advocate for respondent No.1Mr. V.S. Valse, Advocate for respondent No.2
Legal Reasoning
5903_CA_11390_2024+6pension as their service was not pensionable as per the rules itself. When theDepartment came across the proposals and other Judgments, then thissituation was pointed out and, therefore, there is delay, which is notdeliberate at all. He submits that this Court had relied on the decisions inGanesh Narhar Chavan vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in WritPetition No.14935 of 2017 decided on 11.03.2022, Punjahari Baburao Digheand others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.12902of 2018 decided on 06.05.2022 and Raju Kishanrao Pawar vs. The State ofMaharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.2074 of 2020 decided on01.10.2022, however, prior to that there was a decision of this Court in SatishGanpatrao Patil and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in WritPetition No.2311 of 2013 decided on 31.03.2015, wherein the sameGovernment Resolution was already held to be not violative of Article 14and/or Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The case of present petitionerswas not distinguished from the case in Satish Ganpatrao Patil (supra),therefore, the subsequent decisions have been rendered per incuriam and thisposition has been considered in Sunil Subhash Ekhande vs. The State ofMaharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.11525 of 2018 decided at thePrincipal Seat on 01.08.2023 and therefore, the decisions in the present caseare not required to be reviewed. 6903_CA_11390_2024+65Per contra, respondents – original petitioners strongly opposeddelay condonation applications and review applications by submitting that noreasonable ground has been shown for condonation of delay. All the factswere known to respondents/State. Still there were no submissions advancednor the decision in Satish Ganpatrao Patil (supra) was shown and relied bythe Government. Therefore, there is absolutely no necessity to review thedecisions in the present case. 6The first and the foremost point that is required to be decided isthe delay condonation application. Perusal of contents of applications wouldshow that absolutely no reasonable ground has been shown for condonationof delay. It is lamely stated that the delay is caused because when theDepartment came across the proposals and other Judgments, then it wasfound that the petitioners never worked on 100% grant-in-aid post as a FullTime Librarian around and on 01.11.2005 and, therefore, they were notentitled for the pension. When it was not their pensionable service, questionof up-gradation and grant of pension and the consequential benefits was notin question. Then it is stated that time was spent to collect the individualrecord from concerned Departments and further time was consumed due toadministrative exigencies. Here, the delay is more than 600 days. If weconsider the orders in all these writ petition, then it can be seen that those 7903_CA_11390_2024+6are same as those were passed on the same date i.e. on 18.10.2022. Asaforesaid, the reliance was on three Judgments i.e. Ganesh Chavan (supra),Punjahari Dighe (supra) and mainly on Raju Pawar (supra) and, therefore,the directions were given to the State that the State would verify the case ofeach petitioner in the light of service condition and tenure of employmentand upon conferring that they are entitled for the benefits in the light of twoJudgments i.e. Ganesh Chavan (supra) and Punjahari Dighe (supra), theState would proceed to extend such benefits to them as expeditiously aspossible and preferably on or before 31.03.2023. Thus, the State had almostsix months for collection of data and considering the claim of each petitioner.Further, the order also stated that where the State comes to the conclusionthat the particular petitioner is not entitled for the particular benefit, then thereasoned order would be passed and the said order would be communicatedto the concerned petitioner within a period of 30 days. Therefore, in the lightof these directions the collection of data ought to have been within a periodof six months at that time itself, then the State ought to have come to theconclusion as to whether a particular petitioner is entitled to the reliefclaimed and conferred or not. But it appears that no such activity had takenplace within the aforesaid six months. Whatever the reason that has beennow given is too general. When the Department started collecting data inrespect of each of the petitioners before us now has not been explained with 8903_CA_11390_2024+6documentary evidence. 7Interestingly, in all matters State was the respondent. LearnedAGP who was representing the State ought to have brought to the notice ofDivision Bench that already some decisions are given, which might becontrary to each other. Then the recourse which was available as per the lawof precedent could have been taken. Now, only upon the decision in SunilSubhash Ekhande (supra) these applications have been filed. However, as wehave called the original record of the petition, then we are able to considerthat such petitions are there since 2015 at least before the Benches and at thePrincipal Seat. Photo copies of those decisions were part and parcel of thesepetitions. Those decisions are : 1)Uttam Sandu Badak and others vs. The State of Maharashtra andothers in Writ Petition No.10426 of 2015 decided on 22.02.2019.2)Balasaheb Shripati Munde vs. The State of Maharashtra and others inWrit Petition No.15008 of 2017 decided on 09.10.2019.3)Punjahari Baburao Dighe and others vs. The State of Maharashtra andothers in Writ Petition No.12902 of 2018 with companion matters decided on06.05.2022.4)Rajendra Rangnath Sambhus vs. The State of Maharashtra and othersin Writ Petition No.6337 of 2019 decided on 04.07.2022. 9903_CA_11390_2024+65)Raju Kishanrao Pawar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in WritPetition No.2074 of 2020 with companion matters decided on 01.10.2022.6)Kiran Keshavrao Girhe and others vs. The State of Maharashtra andothers in Writ Petition No.6630 of 2013 with companion matters decided on28.01.2015. It is further to be noted that in Punjahari Dighe’s decision(supra) the earlier decisions in many matters were relied. The GovernmentPleaders then representing had also relied on some decisions including thedecision in Satish Ganpatrao Patil (supra). Paragraph No.56 of thatJudgment clearly shows about the scope which was decided in SatishGanpatrao Patil (supra) and a specific statement has been made that sincethe case is totally different and distinguishable on the facts the point is notrequired to be referred to Larger Bench. Then paragraph No.58 also takesnote of the submission on behalf of Government that in Judgments relied bypetitioners Government Resolution of 2006 was not considered and,therefore, those Judgments were per incuriam. That point has also beendealt with by the Division Bench and it was specifically then observed thatthe Government Resolution dated 03.08.2006 taking away the rights vestedin the employees under Government Resolution dated 28.06.1994 is illegal,arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learnedAGP appearing before us has not stated that the State has approached 10903_CA_11390_2024+6Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the decision in Punjahari Dighe (supra)and whether any stay has been granted to the operation of Judgment andorder therein. Thereafter, in Raju Kishanrao Pawar (supra) other companionmatters were also considered, wherein also decision in Punjahari Dighe(supra) was cited, so also Satish Ganpatrao Patil (supra). Same pointsappears to have been raised on behalf of Government and in paragraphNo.13 of the decision in Raju Kishanrao Pawar (supra) it is observed that theState of Maharashtra has neither challenged the decision in Ganesh Chavan(supra) nor Punjahari Dighe (supra) before Hon’ble Supreme Court norreview petitions were filed. Paragraph Nos.14 and 15 were on the point as towhy the Division Bench dealing with the decision in Raju Kishanrao Pawar(supra) relied on Ganesh Chavan (supra) and Punjahari Dighe (supra). Allthese things, therefore, were considered in those matters. Thereafter, itappears that those decisions were then cited before the coordinate Bench inSunil Subhash Ekhande (supra), who has taken a different view. However,the fact remains is, when the case of Sunil Subhash Ekhande (supra) hasbeen decided on 01.08.2023 but prior to that there are decisions which haveattained finality, then only on the basis of decision in Sunil Subhash Ekhande(supra) whether review is permissible. Another fact which is now emergingfrom the original petitioners is that in some of the matters which have beendecided by this Court the benefits have been conferred, therefore, again there 11903_CA_11390_2024+6would be disparity. It is only due to the delay that has been caused by theState Government. For some persons implementation of the order was therecourse taken by the State and now, only in another matter when thedecision is in favour of the State Government, the Government states thatthere should be review. This approach of the State Government is absolutelynot proper. Immediately after the decision in Ganesh Chavan (supra) andPunjahari Dighe (supra) if the steps would have been taken by the StateGovernment to challenge those decisions before Hon’ble Supreme Court andthen if the Judgment and order passed in those matters would have beenstayed, every confusion or so called illegality would have been avoided. 8The reason for the delay is absolutely not explained and generalreason has been given that when Department came across the proposals thefacts came to the knowledge of the State. In fact, the facts were neversuppressed by any of the petitioners. Every details regarding the petitioners’appointment and the service conditions, duration was available with theEducation Department and, therefore, though in each matter almost sixmonths time was given, the State has not taken appropriate steps in its owninterest. Therefore, both the applications i.e. civil application forcondonation of delay as well as review applications deserve to be dismissed.As aforesaid, the delay has been caused unnecessarily. At the cost of 12903_CA_11390_2024+6repetition, it appears that though six months time was given, neither theState has gone ahead to obey the steps which were required to be taken forobeying the orders of the Court in respective petitions nor took a decision tochallenge the order. Further, Judgment in Sunil Subhash Ekhande (supra)was pronounced on 01.08.2023, but present applications have been filed inMarch and September, 2024, that means, almost a year thereafter. Therefore,costs is required to be imposed for unnecessarily taking the recourse of filingreview application. For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass followingorder. ORDERi)All Civil Applications stand dismissed. ii)Costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) ineach application be deposited, on or before 07.04.2025. iii)After the amount is deposited, it be disbursed to respondents –original petitioners. ( Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J. )( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )agd
Arguments
2903_CA_11390_2024+6...906 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11382 OF 2024 IN RAST/26358/2024THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSVERSUSUTTAM NAMDEVRAO CHAVAN AND ANOTHER...Mr. A.R. Kale, AGP for applicantsMr. T.M. Venjane, Advocate for respondent No.1Mr. V.S. Valse, Advocate for respondent No.2...907 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11384 OF 2024 IN RAST/26111/2024THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSVERSUSUTTAM DEVRAO KAKDE AND OTHERS...Mr. A.R. Kale, AGP for applicantsMr. T.M. Venjane, Advocate for respondent No.1Mr. V.S. Valse, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3...908 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11385 OF 2024 IN RAST/26106/2024THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSVERSUSNANDKISHOR DNYANOBARAO DESHMUKH AND ANR...Mr. A.R. Kale, AGP for applicantsMr. T.M. Venjane, Advocate for respondent No.1 3903_CA_11390_2024+6Mr. V.S. Valse, Advocate for respondent No.2...909 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11388 OF 2024 IN RAST/26104/2024THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSVERSUSSUBHASH VITTHALRAO KHANAPURE AND ANR...Mr. A.R. Kale, AGP for applicantsMr. T.M. Venjane, Advocate for respondent No.1Mr. V.S. Valse, Advocate for respondent No.2...CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE:27th FEBRUARY, 2025ORDER :( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )1These applications have been filed for condonation of delay of672, 482, 674, 674, 672, 672 and 672 days in filing review application in therespective writ petitions to be condoned and to review the decision in respectof main writ petition. 2The State Government was respondent in Writ PetitionNos.15372 of 2019, 4088 of 2019, 14640 of 2019, 9613 of 2019, 15062 of2019, 15103 of 2019 and 15134 of 2019 respectively. All the writ petitioners 4903_CA_11390_2024+6in all the matters prayed for writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writto give directions to respondents to upgrade the services of petitioner to thepost of Full Time Librarian. Further, in some of the petitions directions weresought against Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad to submit theproposal in respect of pension of petitioner by counting the service renderedby petitioner as Part Time Librarian to the extent of half. The matters wereheard by Division Bench of this Court and similar orders were passed on thebasis of earlier decisions of this Court. Now, the State intends to review theseorders, however, there is delay, as aforesaid. 3Heard learned AGP Mr. G.A. Kulkarni as well as Mr. A.R. Kale forapplicants and learned T.M. Venjane, C.K. Shinde, S.D. Kotkar as well as Mr.V.S. Valse for respondents in respective matters. 4Learned AGP vehemently submits that petitioners werechallenging the Government Resolution dated 03.08.2006, thereby restrictingthe up-gradation of Part Time Librarian to Full Time Librarian from01.04.2006 only. It was stated that it was contrary to Rule 30, 33 of theMaharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 as well as Article 14 of theConstitution of India. However, the petitioners were not at all entitled for the