Writ Petition No. 2801 of 2025 · Bombay High Court

1 47. WP 2801 of 2025.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPURWRIT PETITION NO.2801 OF 2025BARRISTER SHESHRAO WANKHEDE 56th BIRTH ANNIVERSARY PRATISHANTHR. PRESIDENT AND ANOTHERVERSUS GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE, RASHTRIYA TUKDOJI MAHARAJ NAGPURUNIVERSITY, THR. CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHEROffice Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's ordersMr. S.P. Rajurkar h/f Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. D.R. Bhoyar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.Mr. P.S. Wathore, Advocate for Respondent No.2 CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATED : 30th MARCH 2026PER COURT :-

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners as well as learned Advocate for the respondents.

By this petition, the petitioner Management has challenged an order dated 03.05.2025, passed by respondent No.1Grievance Committee, Rashtriya Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur, in appeal No.01 of 2025. By the impugned order, the Grievance Committee has held that the respondent No.2 employee is entitled to submit an application for grant of benefits of CareerAdvancement Scheme (CAS) and the petitioner Management isdirected to forward the employee’s proposal to the competent authority for further processing to award benefits of promotion as per the scheme. 2 47. WP 2801 of 2025.odt3.The only contention canvassed by the learned Advocatefor the petitioners is that respondent No.2 employee has indulged incertain financial irregularities on account of Non-submission of documents of National Service Scheme (NSS) of the year 2012-15 and therefore, he could not be considered for the scheme. He submits that in view of this kind of conduct of employee, the petitionerManagement need not be insisted to consider him for grant of CareerAdvancement Scheme benefits.

The petition is opposed by Mr. P.S. Wathore, learnedAdvocate for respondent No.2 and he submits that the allegations about irregularities by respondent No.2 employee are not at all proved. He submits that in fact, in view of the Audit Report, placed on record, it becomes clear that respondent No.2 employee has not indulged in any irregularities and therefore, the entitlement of respondent No.2 for benefit of Career Advancement Scheme cannot be denied.

Having regard to the controversy involved, it has to benoted that the Grievance Committee has directed the petitionerManagement to forward the proposal of respondent No.2 employee to the competent authority for granting Career Advancement Schemebenefits. In case the employee is entitled for grant of CareerAdvancement Scheme benefits, his entitlement would be decided by 3 47. WP 2801 of 2025.odtthe competent authority in accordance with the Career AdvancementScheme. There is nothing on record to demonstrate any prohibition on the part of employee to submit an application for Career AdvancementScheme benefits and further, there is no reason with the petitionerManagement to withhold the proposal only because there are certain allegations against the employee about irregularities.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Grievance Committee has recorded reasons in support of its directions to the petitioner Management to forward the proposal of respondentNo.2 employee under Career Advancement Scheme. A perusal of the reasons shows that due consideration is given to the relevant aspects including the entitlement of employee to apply for the CareerAdvancement Scheme. The entitlement of the employee for CareerAdvancement Scheme benefits would be ultimately decided by the Grievance Committee. In view of this, I do not find any perversity with the reasons recorded by the Grievance Committee, warranting indulgence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)asd