Bombay High Court
Didar Singh Bhag Singh Singh vs State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 24 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:40475-DB 13 WP 14446 OF 2023.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14446 OF 2023
Didar Singh Bhag Singh Singh
Age - 65 years,
Retired Assistant Commissioner of Police,
R/at. Ground Floor, Netto Apartment, ...Petitioners
New Kant Wadi, Off Perry Cross Road,
Bandra [West], Mumbai - 400 050.
Versus
1] State of Maharashtra
Through Additional Chief Secretary.
Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400 032. ...Respondents
2] Commissioner of Police, Mumbai
Having office at :
Crawford Market,
Fort, Mumbai - 400 001.
Mr. S. R. Nargolkar a/w. Ms. Neeta Patil i/b. Mr. Arjun Kadam,
advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. A.R. Deolekar, AGP, for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON: 12TH SEPTEMBER 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2025.
JUDGMENT (PER : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.)
Digitally signed by RAJESHRI RAJESHRI PRAKASH 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the PRAKASH AHER AHER Date:
2025.09.25 parties.
11:35:19
+0530
Page 1 of 17
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2025 21:26:39 :::
13 WP 14446 OF 2023.DOC
2. The Petitioner who is a retired Assistant Commissioner of Police is assailing the order dated 24th November, 2020 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai in Miscellaneous Application No.140 of 2020. The Miscellaneous Application filed by the Petitioner-Applicant before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai seeking condonation of delay of six years and six months has been dismissed. Consequently, the Original Application No.208 of 2020 filed by the Petitioner is also dismissed being barred by limitation.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The brief facts of the case of the Petitioner are that, he joined as a Police Sub Inspector in the Police Department on 23 rd January, 1975. After serving the police department for 34 years, he retired as a Assistant Commissioner of Police on 31 st January, 2013. After entry of the Petitioner in service of the police department in the year 1975, it was made mandatory for a Government servant to qualify in the Marathi language examination, as provided in the Maharashtra Government Servants (Other than Judicial Department service) Marathi Language Examination Rules, 1987. These Rules were introduced much after the entry of the Petitioner Page 2 of 17 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2025 21:26:39 ::: 13 WP 14446 OF 2023.DOC in service in 1975. According to Rule 3 of these Rules, an incumbent was required to pass Lower Standard Marathi Language Examination, before expiry of two years from the date of joining service, and also pass Higher Standard Marathi language Examination, within two years of passing of Lower Standard Marathi Language Examination. The consequence of not passing the said examination was provided in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1987. If a candidate failed to pass the above examination within stipulated period, his increments were liable to be withheld, until he passed the examination as provided under Rule 4 of the said Rules. Though the Petitioner admittedly did not pass the concerned examination, his yearly increments were released regularly.
4. On 3rd January, 2011, he preferred a representation for grant of exemption from the said examination, to which he did not receive any response. Incidentally, he passed the Lower Standard Marathi Language Examination in the year 2011 and also qualified Higher Standard Marathi Language examination in the year 2012, which was at the fag end of his service career. Though he passed the examination, he was served with a notice dated 2 nd August, 2012, informing him that the increments were wrongly released in Page 3 of 17 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2025 21:26:39 ::: 13 WP 14446 OF 2023.DOC his favour, though he had failed to pass the Marathi language examination all these years. Therefore, the increments released in his favour during the intervening period, were the excess payments, which were required to be recovered.
The Petitioner responded by informing the Authorities that in fact, he has passed the examination in the years 2011 and 2012 respectively. Therefore, the recovery could not be made against the increments paid to him. Eventually, by letter dated 28th June, 2013, recovery of Rs.10,81,104/- was sought towards excess payment. The Petitioner deposited Rs.5,82,840/- on 28th October, 2013, and also consented to adjust Rs.1,10,712/- from his G.I.S. and remaining amount of Rs.3,87,552/- was to be recovered from his gratuity.
5. On this background, the Petitioner filed Original Application No.208 of 2020, challenging the order dated 16 th February, 2011, and 11th August, 2013, whereby recovery of Rs.10,81,104/- was made from him. The Original Application was accompanied by Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay of six years and six months caused in filing the Original Application. Page 4 of 17 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2025 21:26:39 ::: 13 WP 14446 OF 2023.DOC
6. The above Miscellaneous Application No.140 of 2020, filed by the Petitioner was heard by the learned Administrative Tribunal, and dismissed on the ground that, the Petitioner has not given plausible explanation for the delay of six years and six months in approaching the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. It was observed by the learned Tribunal, that since the cause of action had accrued to the applicant in 2013 itself, the Original Application ought to have been filed by the applicant within one year from the order of recovery as provided under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Not only has he approached the Tribunal belatedly, but, inspite of huge delay, there is no explanation given by the Petitioner for the delay caused in approaching the Tribunal. It is observed that there is absolutely no explanation given by the Petitioner as to why he remained silent for years together. The Petitioner being a responsible police officer, who was holding a high rank in the Police Department, was expected to be diligent. Hence, the delay caused was expected to be sufficiently explained in order to enable the Tribunal, to condone the delay in judicious manner, by exercising its discretion. Page 5 of 17 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2025 21:26:39 ::: 13 WP 14446 OF 2023.DOC The sum and substance of the order is that though the Tribunal was alive to the fact that a hyper technical approach should not be adopted by the Courts and Tribunals, and there should be a liberal approach while condoning the delay, but, such discretion could be exercised only if sufficient cause is shown.
7. On such premise, the application for condonation of delay of more than six years has been rejected by the Tribunal holding that the Petitioner is not vigilant and he is guilty of inaction, negligence and laches.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER
8. We have heard Mr. Nargolkar, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, who at the outset has fairly conceded that the application for condonation of delay filed by the Petitioner did not contain any explanation for delay caused in approaching the Administrative Tribunal. According to him though he has a very good case on merits, however, on account of rejection of his Application for condonation of delay, he has been deprived of his legitimate rights, which amounts to perpetuating the illegality Page 6 of 17 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2025 21:26:39 ::: 13 WP 14446 OF 2023.DOC which requires interference by this Court. He has taken us through the contents of Application for condonation of delay.
9. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, though the Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay did not contain the averment, necessary for the Member, MAT to exercise his discretion, but, considering the merits of the matter, and the injustice caused to the Applicant, the oral submissions made by the counsel for the Petitioner, ought to have taken into consideration by the MAT, while passing the order impugned.
10. It is submitted that the Marathi Language Examination Rules, 1987, have come into force in 1987, which is much later than his entry in the police department in the year 1975. During his police training of two years, he has undergone a rigorous and comprehensive training, during which the study of Marathi Language was predominant. Though he did not appear and qualify the Marathi Language Examination, as per Rules of 1987, nonetheless increments were released and credited in his account for years together notwithstanding the fact that, the Petitioner did not appear and pass the requisite examination. Page 7 of 17 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2025 21:26:39 ::: 13 WP 14446 OF 2023.DOC In fact, he had preferred a representation dated 3 rd January, 2011, seeking exemption from passing the Marathi Language Examination, on the ground that after his appointment in the year 1st October, 1975, upto 31st September, 1977, he has undergone a rigorous police training provided for Police Sub-inspectors, during which Marathi Language was compulsory for the training. He had qualified the Marathi Language examination during the course of his training, in which he was at Serial No.10 in the merit list. Therefore, in view of the rigorous training of Marathi language, which he received during the training, and also having qualified Marathi Examination during his training, he requested exemption from passing the examination vide communication dated 3rd January, 2011. His application was also supported by the recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Criminal Branch, CID, Mumbai, and a affidavit affirmed by one of the teachers imparting Marathi language training at police training centre, supporting the Petitioner. After making such application, the Petitioner had reasonably expected that he would be getting exemption from passing the Marathi language examination. Page 8 of 17 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2025 21:26:39 ::: 13 WP 14446 OF 2023.DOC
11. In fact, even the Rule 4 of the Rules for Marathi language examination provides for grant of exemption from passing the examination subject to the conditions set out in the Rules. Hence, considering that the Petitioner was already trained in Marathi language, his day to day business during all his service tenure was also conducted in Marathi, it was not necessary for him to pass the Marathi language examination. However, all of a sudden he was in receipt of the communication, whereby the recovery was directed against him for the excess payment made to him during the period from 30th December, 1989 to 8th August, 2011.
12. It is submitted by Mr. Nargolkar, the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, in fact Rules itself provide for consequence of failure to qualify the examination. Failure to pass the examination entailed in withholding of increments till he passes or exempted from passing the examination. No sooner the Government servant passes the examination, the increments accrued to him which were withheld, were to be released in his favour, as if no increments were withheld. Hence, according to him, though admittedly, the increments were released in his favour inadvertently during the period he was not qualified. However, upon passing of the Page 9 of 17 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2025 21:26:39 ::: 13 WP 14446 OF 2023.DOC examination, he was very much entitled for the increments to be released in his favour. Therefore, there was no question of making any recovery of the amounts, claiming to be wrongly paid disbursed.
13. The learned advocate for the Petitioner, therefore, urges that this Court may exercise its powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 24th November, 2020 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai in Miscellaneous Application No.140 of 2020, and liberty may be granted to him to file a fresh application for condonation of delay giving elaborate reasons for failing to approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, within reasonable time. It is submitted that considering the fact that he has a very good case on merits, the technical grounds should not be allowed to outweigh the merits of the matter. Therefore the impugned order is required to quash and set aside in the interest of justice.
Page 10 of 17 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2025 21:26:39 ::: 13 WP 14446 OF 2023.DOC SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
14. The learned AGP Develkar appearing for the Respondent - State strenuously opposed the prayer made by the Petitioner, and submitted that the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, is a reasoned and valid order, which cannot be faulted with. The Petitioner is not a layman, but a retired high ranking police officer, who should have been diligent about his rights. Nevertheless, even when he approached the Administrative Tribunal, he has failed to explain the delay in whatsoever manner in his application for condonation of delay. He has merely made out grounds, on the merits of the matter, which are not sufficient for exercise of discretion by the Administrative Tribunal for condonation of delay.
15. It is further submitted that, though the impugned order was issued on 28th June, 2013, the Petitioner had submitted himself to the order by voluntarily depositing an amount of Rs.5,82,840/- and also consented to adjust the rest of the amount. After submitting himself to the impugned order, he has belatedly raised objection to the said order, after delay of more than six years, Page 11 of 17 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2025 21:26:39 ::: 13 WP 14446 OF 2023.DOC therefore, the interference by this Court is not warranted and the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.
CONCLUSION ON MERITS
16. We have heard the respective parties at length. Upon going through the impugned order, we find that the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has decided the Miscellaneous Application in the light of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, which requires a Government servant to file Original Application within a period of one year from the date of cause of action. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, reads thus:
21. Limitation. (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,-
(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;
(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where-Page 12 of 17
Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2025 21:26:39 ::: 13 WP 14446 OF 2023.DOC
(a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and
(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period."
17. Upon perusal of the contents of the application filed by the Petitioner, we do not find any grounds whatsoever explaining the reasons for delay made out by the Petitioner. Hence, we do not find any error in the order passed by the Member (J.) of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, rejecting the Miscellaneous Application No.140 of 2020. The Administrative Tribunal has passed the impugned order in exercise of powers conferred under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Since there Page 13 of 17 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2025 21:26:39 ::: 13 WP 14446 OF 2023.DOC was no explanation whatsoever, offered for condoning the delay, the Tribunal has rightly held that for exercise of its discretionary powers, there has to be some material justifying the delay caused in filing the Original Application. In absence of such reasons, the Tribunal has rightly refused to condone the delay by exercising its powers under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In that view of the matter, we do not find the order passed by the Tribunal erroneous or arbitrary. However, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has offered some explanation for the delay. His contentions are, prima facie, supported by the document, on record. Moreover, the submission of the learned counsel to the effect that the Petitioner should not be unduly made to suffer due to deficiencies in drafting the application for condonation of delay, which was done by his counsel. After hearing the learned advocate for the Petitioner, we also find merit in his submissions that, though the Petitioner had not initially passed the Marathi Language Examination, he has passed in the year 2011-12. The consequences of not passing the examination have been elaborately provided in Rule 5 of the Marathi Language Examination Rules, 1987. Therefore, the case of Page 14 of 17 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2025 21:26:39 ::: 13 WP 14446 OF 2023.DOC the Petitioner who had passed the examination belatedly would governed by Rule 5, which reads thus:
"5. Failure to pass examination.-A Government servant, who fails to pass the examinations within the prescribed period shall, after the expiry of the said period, be liable to have his increments withheld until he passes the examination or examinations, as the case may be, or is exempted from passing the same under the provisions of Rule 4.
Note 1.-The date of passing the examination shall be deemed to be the date following the date on which the examination ends.
Note 2.-Increments so withheld shall become payable to the Government servant with effect from the date on which he passes the examination or is exempted from passing it and increments shall accrue to him as if no increments had been withheld. He shall not be entitled for the arrears due to withholding of increments."
18. In view of Note 2, we find that prima facie petitioner has a good case on merits. However, due to the dismissal of his application for condonation of delay, his grievance could not be redressed resulting in huge financial loss. The wrongful deprivation of his service benefit is required to be addressed by the Tribunal. We are of the considered opinion that, the Petitioner is not going to benefit by the delay caused in filing the proceedings. In fact, great prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner if his case Page 15 of 17 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2025 21:26:39 ::: 13 WP 14446 OF 2023.DOC is not heard on merits. If that be so, since the delay does not appear to be intentional, and substantial justice being paramount consideration, undue emphasis cannot be attached to delay. Therefore, though we do not find any error in the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, considering that the Petitioner prima facie has a very good case on merits. In order to ensure that no injustice is caused to the Petitioner, instead of adopting a hyper technical approach, it would serve ends of justice if the Petitioner is granted a fair opportunity to put forth his grievance before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, by directing the Tribunal to decide the Original Application on its own merits.
19. Hence taking a broader view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to modify the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, by condoning the delay in filing the Original Application No. 208 of 2020, in exercise our power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As a result the Miscellaneous Application No.140 of 2020 stands allowed. The Administrative Tribunal is directed to hear the Original Application No. 208 of 2020 on its own merits.
Page 16 of 17 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2025 21:26:39 ::: 13 WP 14446 OF 2023.DOC
20. The parties shall be at liberty to carry out necessary amendments before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, if necessary.
21. Needless to state that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. Therefore, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal shall decide the Original Application on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court.
22. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.) Page 17 of 17 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2025 21:26:39 :::