Bombay High Court
Vilas S/O Guljar Borkar vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 20 June, 2019
Author: Sunil B. Shukre
Bench: Sunil B. Shukre, S. M. Modak
1 wp8451-54.18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 8451 OF 2018
PETITIONER :- Vilas S/o. Guljar Borkar,
Aged about 46 years, Occupation-Service,
R/o. Plot No. 42, Mahalaxmi Nagar-2,
Manewada Raod, Nagpur.
...V E R S U S...
RESPONDENTS:- 1. State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary, Water Resources Department,
3rd Floor, Main Building, Mantralaya,
Mumbai- 400 032.
2. The Chief Engineer,
Gosikhurd Project,
Water Resources Department,
Sinchan Sewa Bhawan, 2nd Floor,
Nagpur-2.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8452 OF 2018
PETITIONER :- Gopal S/o. Bajirao Chintanwar,
Aged about 44 years, Occupation-Service,
R/o. Nirmal Nagri, Building No. 3,
Flat No. 2-B, Umrer Road, Nagpur.
...V E R S U S...
RESPONDENTS:- 1. State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary, Water Resources Department,
3rd Floor, Main Building, Mantralaya,
Mumbai- 400 032.
2. The Chief Engineer,
Gosikhurd Project,
Water Resources Department,
Sinchan Sewa Bhawan, 2nd Floor,
Civil Lines, Nagpur-2.
::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2019 02:24:40 :::
2 wp8451-54.18.odt
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8453 OF 2018
PETITIONER :- Vijay S/o. Samayya Chhanam,
Aged about 46 years, Occupation-Service,
R/o. Plot No. 96, Uday Nagar,
Near D. A. Automobile, Ring Road,
Nagpur-24.
...V E R S U S...
RESPONDENTS:- 1. State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary, Water Resources Department,
3rd Floor, Main Building, Mantralaya,
Mumbai- 400 032.
2. The Chief Engineer,
Gosikhurd Project,
Water Resources Department,
Sinchan Sewa Bhawan,
Civil Lines, Nagpur-2.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 8454 OF 2018
PETITIONER :- Shri Anil Shrawan Dandekar,
Aged about 46 years, Occupation-Service,
R/o. Vidya Nagar, Vivek Colony,
Brahmapuri, Chandrapur.
...V E R S U S...
RESPONDENTS:- 1. State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary, Water Resources Department,
3rd Floor, Main Building, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Chief Engineer,
Gosikhurd Project,
Water Resources Department,
Sinchan Sewa Bhawan,
Civil Lines, Nagpur-2.
::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2019 02:24:40 :::
3 wp8451-54.18.odt
3. Jayant Shankarrao Kathote,
Aged about 51 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. 140, Bajiprabhu Nagar,
Near Ramnagar, Nagpur-440 033.
4. Ravindra Avadhut Rotkar,
Aged about 50 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 1, Friends Society,
Near Rachna Vatika, Narendra Nagar,
Nagpur- 440 015.
5. Roshan Vasantrao Narad,
Aged about 38 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 157, Ayurvedic Layout,
Umred Road, Nagpur-440 024.
6. Rajesh Ashok Patil,
Aged about 48 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. 49/G-1, Jantar Mantar Apartments,
Amravati Road, Nagpur-440 033.
7. Suresh Bhagaji Khemnar,
Aged about 39 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. At Post Sakur, Tq. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
8. Ajaypal Kawalnayansingh Lamba,
Aged about 37 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Nand Niwas, H. N. 5-7-1,
D-3 Bunglow, Usmanpura, Aurangabad.
9. Satyajeet Dewaji Gohane,
Aged about 38 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. D-501, Jayanti Nagari-II,
Besa, Nagpur.
10.Sachin Nawalkishor Chowksey,
Aged about 43 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 113, Sachin Co-operative
Housing Society, Gayatri Nagar,
Zingabai Takli, Nagpur- 440 030.
::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2019 02:24:40 :::
4 wp8451-54.18.odt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Shreerang P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for petitioner in all writ
petitions.
Shri N. Rao, A.G.P. for respondent no. 1 in all writ petitions.
Shri J. B. Kasat, Advocate for respondent no. 2 in all writ petitions.
Shri C. S. Kaptan, Senior Advocate for respondent no. 3 to 10
(writ petition no. 8454/18).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATED :- 20.06.2019.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.):
1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties.
2. We have heard Shri Shreerang P. Bhandarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri N. Rao, learned A.G.P. for respondent no. 1, Shri J. B. Kasat, learned A.G.P. for respondent no. 2, Shri C. S. Kaptan, learned senior counsel for respondent no. 3 to 10. All the respondents have raised preliminary objection in view of the Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (Act of 1985). According to them, these petitions should not have filed before this Court when the Tribunal is set up and available to entertain, try and decide such matters. According to learned counsel for the petitioners in all these petitions, as this Court has already taken cognizance of the matter, the preliminary objection ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2019 02:24:40 ::: 5 wp8451-54.18.odt regarding jurisdiction holds no water.
3. At the outset, we must say here, although notices have been issued by this Court for final disposal at admission stage itself, the fact remains that the petitions are yet to be admitted and therefore, it would be appropriate for this Court to consider preliminary objection raised by the respondents and accordingly, preliminary objection is being considered by this Court.
4. The law in this regard has been settled already by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 which has been further followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sunita Daulatrao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, decided on 06.03.2003. This law is also followed by another Division Bench of this Court in case of Gopal Mahadeorao Bayaskar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 838. The law crystallized now is that any service matter in respect of employee which is covered by Act of 1985 shall be heard and tried by Administrative Tribunal established in that behalf. It cannot be disputed that issue raised in these petitions relates to service matter and therefore, the grievance is required to be raised by the petitioner-employees before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal as it is proper ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2019 02:24:40 ::: 6 wp8451-54.18.odt forum of first instance for dealing with the grievances contained in the petitions. If this is not done, the law settled indicates, valuable rights of parties to challenge the order of Tribunal before the High Court would be lost. Apart from this, the language of Section 28 of the Act of 1985 has been held to be clear and it has been said to be so in the light of Constitutional provisions. Therefore, we find that there is great substance in the argument of learned counsel for the respondents in support of the preliminary objection raised by the respondents. Accordingly, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions.
5. At this stage, petitioners stand relegated to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal before whom the petitioners may file appropriate application within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Till that time, in modification of our order dated 26.02.2019, we direct that the parties shall maintain status quo in relation to the promotion process. The Administrative Tribunal shall not be influenced by the observations made by this Court in this order or in the order dated 26.2.2019 while deciding any other application of the petitioners including application for grant of interim relief etc. The interregnum period due to the pendency of these petitions shall be a ground available to the petitioners for seeking ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2019 02:24:40 ::: 7 wp8451-54.18.odt condonation of delay caused in filing the application under Section 19 of the Act of 1985.
6. If any application for seeking interim relief is filed by the petitioners or anyone of them, we would request the Administrative Tribunal to dispose of the same on merit as early as possible, preferably within two weeks from the date of filing of the application.
7. All the Petitions are disposed of in these terms accordingly.
8. In view of the above order, CAW No. 1519/2019 in W.P. No. 8454/2018, CAW No. 1520/2019 in W.P. No. 8453/2018, CAW No. 1522/2019 in W.P. No. 8452/2018, CAW No. 1523/2019 in W.P. No. 8451/2018 and CAW No. 1524/2018 in W.P. No. 8451/2018 have become infractuous and are disposed of as such.
9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
RR Jaiswal
::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2019 02:24:40 :::