Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Malojirao B. Bhosale, filed a writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 1 October 2004 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), Mumbai, in Original Application No. 44 of 2004. The MAT had accepted the petitioner's contention that he was unjustifiably bypassed for promotion to the post of Deputy Draftsman-cum-Deputy Secretary in 1994 on the mistaken premise that he held no lien on his parent post due to being on deputation. However, the MAT denied the relief of promotion with effect from 1994, instead directing consideration for promotion from 2004, when the petitioner was found unfit. The petitioner argued that if considered from 1994, his confidential reports prior to that year would have been taken into account and he would have been found fit. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the cause of action arose in 1994, but the petitioner filed the original application only in 2004, a delay of ten years. During this period, several junior employees were promoted and were not impleaded. The MAT had consciously molded the relief considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, and the High Court found no error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Delay and Laches - Petitioner was not considered for promotion in 1994 on mistaken premise of no lien - Filed original application in 2004 after ten years - MAT granted promotion from 2004 but denied from 1994 - High Court upheld, holding that delay and laches disentitled petitioner to retrospective relief - Held that the MAT consciously molded relief considering peculiar facts and petitioner's inaction for ten years (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to promotion with effect from 1994 despite filing the original application in 2004, and whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal erred in denying such retrospective promotion.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner failed to make out any case warranting interference with the impugned judgment and order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Delay and laches
- Promotion
- Deputation
- Lien
- Consideration for promotion
- Molding of relief
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (08) 156
WRIT PETITION NO. 307 OF 2007
V. M. KANADE, M. S. SONAK
Mr. Sandeep V. Marne for the Petitioner, Mr. Vishal Thadani, AGP for State-Respondent Nos.1 to 4
The State of Maharashtra and ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) denying promotion with retrospective effect.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought promotion to the post of Deputy Draftsman-cum-Deputy Secretary with effect from 1994.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was not considered for promotion in 1994 on the mistaken premise that he held no lien on his parent post due to being on deputation.
Previous Decisions
The MAT in Original Application No. 44 of 2004 accepted the petitioner's contention but denied promotion from 1994, directing consideration from 2004, whereupon the petitioner was found unfit.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to promotion with effect from 1994 despite filing the original application in 2004?
Whether the MAT erred in molding the relief by denying retrospective promotion?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that once the MAT accepted that he was unjustifiably bypassed for promotion in 1994, he was entitled to promotion from that date, as juniors were promoted in 1994.
Petitioner submitted that if considered from 1994, his confidential reports prior to that year would have been taken into account and he would have been found fit.
Respondents argued that the petitioner delayed filing for ten years, and during that period juniors were promoted and not impleaded.
Ratio Decidendi
The cause of action for non-consideration of promotion arose in 1994, but the petitioner filed the original application only in 2004, a delay of ten years. During this period, several junior employees were promoted and were not impleaded. The MAT consciously molded the relief considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, and there was no error apparent on the face of the record. Delay and laches disentitled the petitioner to retrospective promotion.
Judgment Excerpts
The MAT, has quite consciously molded the reliefs taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the petitioner's case.
The petitioner did not react for a period of almost ten years.
We are, however, satisfied that the petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting interference with the impugned judgment and order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Original Application No. 44 of 2004 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), Mumbai, challenging non-consideration for promotion in 1994. The MAT passed judgment and order on 1 October 2004, accepting the petitioner's contention but denying promotion from 1994, directing consideration from 2004. The petitioner then filed Writ Petition No. 307 of 2007 before the Bombay High Court challenging the denial of retrospective promotion. The High Court dismissed the petition on 8 August 2016.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
