WAMAN MADHAV SAKHAKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) THE petitioner was engaged in Army as a signalman in the corps of signals between 13th February, 1963 and 28th August, 1969. He came to be discharged on medical grounds. The certificate of service that was issued by the Army authorities contains an endorsement that the character of the petitioner is "very Good"; that he has been awarded the Sainy Sewa Medal and had rendered War Service, in the theatres of operation in Jammu and Kashmir between 5th May, 1964, and 9th April, 1968. The petitioner was certified as fit for civil employment. After a relatively short break in service between 29th August, 1969 and 11th March, 1970 the petitioner came to be employed as a clerk in the office of the Zilla Parishard, Chandraput. Thereafter, with another break of two day, the petitioner came to be engaged in the service of the police, as a Sub-Inspector with effect from 15th July, 1974. The deputy Inspector General of Police, Nagpur Range, Nagpur passed an order dated 18th March, 1989 condoning the break between 29th August, 1969 and 11th March, 1970 and of the two days of 13th and 14th July, 1974, these being respectively before the petitioner joined the service of the Zilla Parishad and the police force. In exercise of the powers conferred by the Rule 48 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 the petitioner was allowed the benefit of counting the past service rendered in the Indian Army and in the Zilla Parishad of Chandrapur for the purposes of pension and gratuity. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of retirement on 30th June, 2003. The petitioner had moved this Court in a Writ Petition (W. P. No. 2172 of 1990) under Article 226 claiming the benefit of his past services for the purposes of pay-fixation and seniority. Upon the establishment of the maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, the petition was transferred to the nagpur Bench of the Tribunal and has been now disposed of by the impugned judgment and order dated 19th June, 2001. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner had claimed the benefit of the Maharashtra Released Defence Services (Fixation of Pay and Seniority) Rules, 1974 which were notified by the Governor in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal, while dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner has come the conclusion that he was not entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid Rules on the ground that he had failed to produce documentary material to show that he was employed in the defence services for a fixed tenure.

(3.) IN view of the finding of the Tribunal the short question which arises before the Court relates to the construction which must be placed on the provisions of the Maharashtra Released Defence Services (Fixation of Pay and seniority) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" ). Rule 3 of these rules lays down certain special provisions for the purposes of fixation of pay and seniority as follows: