Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Avinash Vasant Thipse, challenged an order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal that had dismissed his Original Application. The High Court noted that the impugned order had decided four Original Applications, two of which were allowed by the Tribunal itself, while the dismissal of the other two was challenged in separate writ petitions. The present writ petition was one of those two. The other writ petition (No.3999 of 2002) had already been heard and decided by the same bench on 13.1.2005, setting aside the order in relation to the original applicant D.K. Thorat. For the same reasons recorded in that judgment, the High Court held that the impugned order in relation to the present petitioner was also liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service and 50% backwages. The judgment was delivered orally by Justice V.G. Palshikar, with Justice Smt. Nishita Mhatre concurring.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reinstatement - Backwages - The High Court set aside the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal which had dismissed the petitioner's application, and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages, following its earlier decision in a connected matter (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's application was liable to be set aside.
Final Decision
The impugned order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service and 50% backwages.
Law Points
- Reinstatement with continuity of service
- 50% backwages
- setting aside of tribunal order
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (02) 127
Writ Petition No.6673 of 2000
V.G. Palshikar, Smt. Nishita Mhatre
Mr. K.S. Bapat for Petitioner, Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, AGP, for Respondents
The Secretary, Social Welfare Cultural Affairs & Sports Department, Government of Maharashtra; The Director, Social Welfare Department
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Challenge to order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissing Original Application
Remedy Sought
Setting aside of Tribunal order and reinstatement with backwages
Filing Reason
The petitioner's Original Application was dismissed by the Tribunal
Previous Decisions
The Tribunal had decided four Original Applications; two were allowed, two dismissed. The dismissal of the petitioner's application was challenged. In a connected writ petition (No.3999 of 2002), the court had already set aside the order in relation to another applicant (D.K. Thorat).
Issues
Whether the impugned order of the Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's application should be set aside
Ratio Decidendi
The court followed its earlier decision in a connected writ petition (Writ Petition No.3999 of 2002) and held that for the same reasons, the impugned order in the present case was liable to be set aside, directing reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Petition, the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is challenged.
For the reasons recorded in that judgment in the Writ Petition, the impugned order in relation to the present Petitioner is also liable to be set aside.
The Respondents are, therefore, directed to reinstate the Petitioner in service with continuity of service and 50% backwages.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed an Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed. The petitioner then filed the present Writ Petition challenging that order. The High Court heard the matter along with another connected writ petition (Writ Petition No.3999 of 2002), which was decided earlier on 13.1.2005. The present judgment was delivered on 18.2.2005.
