PRATIBHA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner seeking relief of declaration that the provisions of Articles 323 A(2)(d) of the Constitution vis vis provisions of Section 5(2), 5(4)(d), proviso 6(2)(b), (bb), (c), 6(3)(d), 6(3)(A), 17, 28, 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 are ultra vires the constitution, to quash and set aside judgment dated 19.01.1994 passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench in O.A. No.977 of 1991 and also to quash the notice dated 25.05.1990 issued by respondent No.1 directing the petitioner's premature retirement under the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and further to reinstate the petitioner as Deputy Director of Health Services and allow her to continue in the said post till she retires on superannuation with all future benefits accruable to her including promotion to the higher post.

(2.) The petitioner entered into health services of the State of Maharashtra in the year 1968 as Medical Officer Class II. In the year 1974 she was promoted as Medical Officer Class I and further promoted as Deputy Director (Health Services) w.e.f. 18.11.1982. It is averred that the respondents denied her promotion to the post of Deputy Director and therefore, she was required to approach this Court by filing writ petition. The special leave petition filed by the respondents against the judgment of this court came to be dismissed and therefore, the respondents were bound to implement this decision with retrospective effect. It is her case that because of she approaching this Court, the respondents developed revengeful attitude against her and for one or other reason, they started harassing her. In her service record during the years 1983 84, 1985 86, 1987 88, 1988 89 and 1989 90 deliberately adverse entries were made. After she resumed as Deputy Director on 3 rd September, 1987, all these adverse entries were communicated to her. The representation submitted by her except for the year 1987 88 which was partly allowed, rest were rejected. Adverse entries made in her record were nothing but a camouflage to ensure her premature retirement. Against the order of the premature retirement she moved Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (in short "Tribunal").

(3.) The petitioner, while canvassing her case that the decision rendered by the learned Tribunal is wrong, also proceeded to level allegations that the learned members of the Tribunal being biased and prejudiced against her. The reason cited is, the husband of the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.3533/1993 in this Court challenging the appointments of all the members of the Tribunal including the learned members who delivered the impugned judgment against her.