RAVINDRA v. GHUGE AND SANJAYA. DESHMUKH, JJ
Facts
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD901 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1538 OF 2025INREVIEW APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.26353 OF 2024INWRIT PETITION NO.198 OF 2020The State of Maharashtra and others 2… Applicants… Versus …Sanjay Narsingrao Wadikar and another… Respondents...Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, AGP for applicantsMr. T.M. Venjane, Advocate for respondent No.1...WITH903 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1540 OF 2025INREVIEW APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.26366 OF 2024INWRIT PETITION NO.2246 OF 2023The State of Maharashtra and others 3… Applicants… Versus …Madhav Shahajirao Jadhav… Respondent
Legal Reasoning
4901_CA_1538_2025+2challenging 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 thepension 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 this 5901_CA_1538_2025+2position 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. 5Per 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, question 6901_CA_1538_2025+2of 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 Writ Petition Nos.198 of 2020 and 2246 of 2023, thenit can be seen that those are same as those were passed on the same date i.e.on 23.02.2023. As aforesaid, 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 Statewould verify the case of each petitioner in the light of service condition andtenure of employment and upon conferring that they are entitled for thebenefits in the light of two Judgments i.e. Ganesh Chavan (supra) andPunjahari Dighe (supra), the State would proceed to extend such benefits tothem as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31.08.2023.Thus, the State had almost six months for collection of data and consideringthe claim of each petitioner. Further, the order also stated that where theState comes to the conclusion that the particular petitioner is not entitled forthe particular benefit, then the reasoned order would be passed and the saidorder would be communicated to the concerned petitioner within a period of30 days. Therefore, in the light of these directions the collection of dataought to have been within a period of six months at that time itself, then the 7901_CA_1538_2025+2State ought to have come to the conclusion as to whether a particularpetitioner is entitled to the relief claimed and conferred or not. But itappears that no such activity had taken place within the aforesaid six months.Whatever the reason that has been now given is too general. When theDepartment started collecting data in respect of each of the petitioners beforeus now has not been explained with documentary evidence. As regards WritPetition No.8930 of 2019 is concerned, the order that was passed on12.01.2023 took into consideration the decision in Raju Kishanrao Pawar(supra) where also almost same directions were given and in Raju KishanraoPawar (supra) reliance was placed on the decisions in Ganesh Chavan andPunjahari Dighe (supra). Therefore, in that case also sufficient time wasavailable and each step has not been explained by the applicants/State. 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 Writ Petition No.2246 of 2023, then we areable to consider that such petitions are there since 2015 at least before the 8901_CA_1538_2025+2Benches and at the Principal Seat. Photo copies of those decision were partand parcel of Writ Petition No.2246 of 2023. 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 04.07.2022.5)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 that 9901_CA_1538_2025+2Judgment 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 approachedHon’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 nor 10901_CA_1538_2025+2review 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 therewould 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 been 11901_CA_1538_2025+2stayed, 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 ofrepetition, 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 inSeptember – October, 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. 12901_CA_1538_2025+2ORDERi)Civil Application Nos.1538 of 2025, 1540 of 2025 and 1539 of2025 stand dismissed. ii)Costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) ineach application be deposited, on or before 17.03.2025. iii)After the amount is deposited, it be disbursed to respondents –original petitioners. ( SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. )( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )agd
Arguments
2901_CA_1538_2025+2...Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, AGP for applicantsMr. T.M. Venjane, Advocate for sole respondent...WITH902 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1539 OF 2025INREVIEW APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.30241 OF 2024INWRIT PETITION NO.8930 OF 2019The State of Maharashtra and others 3… Applicants… Versus …Balu Aatmaram Kumbhar… Respondent...Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, AGP for applicantsMr. G.J. Kore, Advocate for sole respondent...CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE:07th FEBRUARY, 2025ORDER :( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )1These three applications have been filed for condonation of delay 3901_CA_1538_2025+2of 607, 607 and 620 days in filing review application in the respective writpetitions to be condoned and to review the decision in respect of main writpetition. 2The State Government was respondent in Writ Petition Nos.198of 2020, 2246 of 2023 and 8930 of 2019 respectively. All the writ petitionersin 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, directions were sought againstEducation Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad to submit the proposal inrespect of pension of petitioner by counting the service rendered by petitioneras Part Time Librarian to the extent of half. The matters were heard byDivision Bench of this Court [CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND SANJAYA. DESHMUKH, JJ.] along with other writ petitions for similar reliefs on23.02.2023, 23.02.2023 and 12.01.2023 respectively. Directions were givenon the basis of earlier decisions of this Court. Now, the State intends toreview these orders, however, there is delay, as aforesaid. 3Heard learned AGP Mr. G.A. Kulkarni for applicants and learnedT.M. Venjane as well as Mr. G.J. Kore for respondents in respective matters. 4Learned AGP vehemently submits that petitioners were