Ramdas vs State of Maharashtra, & Ors.

Heard Shri G.N. Khanzode, Advocate for the petitioner, Ms. H.N. Prabhu, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Shri N.W. Almelkar, Advocate for the respondent No.3.

The petitioner employee of Zilla Parishad has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner by which the appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 14(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 is dismissed and the decision of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad withdrawing the time bound promotion given to the petitioner on completion of 12 years of continuous service, is upheld. 3. The claim of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Junior Assistant on 13th January, 1968, then promoted as Junior Accounts Officer in November, 1979 and then after the scheme of time bound promotion came to be introduced by the Government resolution dated 8th June, 1995 he was given time bound promotion by the order dated 30th May, 1996 as he had completed 12 years of continuous service and as he was found eligible. The promotion was effective from 1st October, 1994. According to the petitioner, by the order dated 17th July, 1997 the petitioner was granted exemption from qualifying the examination for being eligible for the post of Deputy Accountant, the exemption being effective from 12th November, 1989 when the petitioner completed 45 years of age.

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad issued an order on 8th January, 1999 cancelling the earlier order dated 30th May, 1996. The petitioner challenged this order before the Divisional Commissioner in the appeal which is dismissed by the impugned order.

The contention of the petitioner is that after completing the age of 45 years he was not required to qualify the departmental examination for time bound promotion and the Chief Executive Officer had properly considered this and by the order issued on 17th July, 1997 exemption was granted to the petitioner from qualifying the departmental examination.

The Government resolution dated 8th June, 1995 by which the scheme of time bound promotion came to be introduced laid down that for availing benefits of time bound promotion the employee should fulfill the requirements of seniority, eligibility and should qualify the required examination and departmental examination. The stand of the respondents is in consonance with the Government resolution dated 8th June, 1995. The learned Advocate for the respondent No.3 has pointed out the communication issued on 12th February, 1997 by the Desk Officer, Rural Development and Water Conservation Department Mantralaya, Mumbai to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sindhudurg by which it is clarified that for the promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer the employee should qualify the departmental examination. I find that the decision of the Chief Executive Officer and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner are proper and do not require any interference by this Court in the extraordinary jurisdiction.

Apart from this, the record shows that the petitioner filed this petition on 29th July, 2008 to challenge the order passed by the Divisional Commissiner on 16th March, 2000. In the petition, the petitioner has stated that he stood superannuated on 31st January, 2002. The petition is filed after 8 years and 4 months of the passing of the impugned order after 6 years and 6 months of superannuation of the petitioner.

In view of the above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.