AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
2026:BHC-NAG:12632-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3956 OF 2014
Shrikrishna S/o. Sitaram Shirsat, Aged: 64 Years, Occ.:Legal Practitioner, R/o. Plot No. 1-A, Ground Floor, In front of Mansi Girls Hostel,
...PETITIONER
Tilak Nagar, Nagpur-440010
// V E R S U S //
The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, Finance Department (Accounts & Treasuries), Mantralaya, Mumbai -32
Director of Accounts & Treasuries,
New Govt. Barracks, 15 & 16, Plot No. 176, Fre Press Journal Road,
RESPONDENTS
Mumbai-400021 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ. DATED : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
O R A L J U D G M E N T : (PER : ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
Heard. Taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
In the present writ petition, the order dated 07/04/2014 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur in MCA No. 06 of 2008 in Original Application No. 209 of 2006, rejecting the application filed under Section 27 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act of 1985’), is under challenge.
The brief facts of the present case are as follows:-
The petitioner, who was appointed on 21/11/1977 as a Class-II Gazetted Officer in the Finance Department, was suspended on 17/12/1980. Thereupon, he filed Original Application No. 209 of 2006. The said original application was disposed of vide order dated 05/04/2007, which read thus:
“ ORDER Oral order Par Member (J). Heard Shri Shirsat the applicant in person & Shri Dhole, the learned P.O. for Respo.Nos. 1&2.
2)P.O. files copy of the order of the Govt. Dtd. 4.4.2007 on the record and copy of the same is supplied to the applicant. By the said order, the govt. has 'regularised the suspension period of the applicant from 17.12.80 to 7.12.94 as duty period. Direction is also given in the said order to make the payment after adjusting the subsistence allowance already paid to the applicant.
3)In view of the above, O.A. is disposed of with a direction to Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to make the payment in respect of retiral benefits & other consequential benefits.
4)The applicant is also directed to cooperate with Respondents, to finalise his case as directed above. Applicant is also directed to submit necessary prescribed forms for sanction & release of retiral benefits to Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 within a period of 3 weeks and the said order be complied with within next 3 months thereafter by Respondent Nos.1 & 2. No costs.”
Thereafter, the execution proceeding was filed under Section 27 of the Act of 1985 which was disposed of vide order dated 31/03/2008. Having gone through the said order dated 31/03/2008, it is evident that it was passed by the Tribunal exceeding its jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Act of 1985.
Thereupon, a Writ Petition No. 4671 of 2008 came to be filed by the petitioner, which was withdrawn with liberty to approach the Tribunal for redressal of grievance. This Court kept all the issues open.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a fresh Original Application No. 400 of 2009, which also came to be withdrawn. The Tribunal, however, took up MCA No. 6 of 2008 for a fresh hearing and, accordingly, vide order dated 07/04/2014, MCA No. 6 of 2008 was re-decided and the same came to be rejected.
In short, the issue in the present writ petition is whether in a proceeding under Section 27 of the Act of 1985 the Tribunal can enter into the merits of the matter, re-appreciate the material on record and can go beyond the final order sought to be executed or hold anything contrary to the final order that has attained the finality ?
Before we proceed to answer the afore-stated question, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 27 of the Act of 1985 which reads thus:
“27 Execution of orders of a Tribunal – Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules, [the order of a Tribunal finally disposing of an application or an appeal shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court (including a High Court) and such order] shall be executed in the same manner in which any final order of the nature referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2) or section 20 (whether or not such final order had actually been made) in respect of the grievance to which the application relates would have been executed.”
From the language of Section 27 it is evident that the order of the Tribunal finally disposing of an application or an appeal shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court including a High Court and such order shall be executed in the same manner in which any final order of the nature referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 whether or not such final order had actually been made in respect of the grievance to which the application relates would have been executed.
In the teeth of the language of Section 27 of the Act of 1985, when we consider and peruse the impugned order dated 07/04/2014, it is evident that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction and virtually decided the legality of the order sought to be executed i.e. the order dated 05/04/2007 passed in OA No. 209 of 2006.
The Tribunal, while entertaining the application under Section 27 of the Act of 1985, entered into the merits of the case, recorded its finding on the merits of the matter, and also decided the entitlement of the petitioner as regards the retiral and consequential benefits.
Ms Marpakwar, learned AGP states that, the Government has moved an application for modification of the order dated 05/04/2007. However, she could not point out any order passed on such an application for modification. Thus, in the absence of any modification having been made to the order dated 05/04/2007, the same has attained finality, and once the Tribunal has, rightly or wrongly, held the petitioner entitled to payment in respect of retiral benefits and other consequential benefits, it is not permitted, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Act of 1985, for the Tribunal to go beyond the order sought to be executed.
In that view of the matter, we pass the following order:
i] The writ petition is allowed.
ii] The impugned orders dated 07/04/2014 and 31/03/2008 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur in MCA No. 06 of 2008 in Original Application. No. 209 of 2006 is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii] The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 27 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 i.e. MCA No. 06 of 2008 afresh.
iv] The Tribunal shall decide such application within three months from the date of furnishing of this order to the learned Tribunal.
Rule is made absolute of in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
[RAJNISH R. VYAS, J] [ANIL S. KILOR, J.]