STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. GOPAL ANANDA NAGARGOJE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, State has challenged the order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 27th November, 1998 in Original Application No.163 of 1998.

(2.) A few facts may be set out. It was the case of the Respondent that he was eligible for consideration to the promotional post of Chief Engineer as on 15th July, 1997. On that date the grievance of the respondent is that one Chavan was promoted. The petitioner challenged the said promotion by Original Application No.505 of 1997. The said application was allowed. The Tribunal directed the petitioner State to consider the suitability of the respondent for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer on the basis of relevant service record and if suitable to be promoted to the post forthwith. Shri Chavan who was promoted to the post of Chief Engineer, according to the Counsel for the Respondent, retired on 31st July, 1997. The respondent was, therefore, eligible to be considered from 1st August, 1997. The order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal was challenged before this Court by Writ Petition No.841 of 1998. The petition was admitted, but no interim relief was granted.

(3.) THE respondent aggrieved by the order dated 26th February, 1998 which held the respondent unfit for promotion as Chief Engineer filed O.A. No.63 of 1998. The original application was opposed by the petitioners. The learned Members of the M.A.T. after taking into consideration the Government Resolution dated 7th January, 1961 was pleased to allow the Original Application. The learned Tribunal was pleased to record a finding of fact that the respondent’s grading was B + 1. The learned Member then noted that if the Government Resolution of 7th January, 1961 had to be considered then in so far as backward class candidate is concerned, special sympathy had to be borne in mind at the time of promotion and promotion should not be denied to such Government Servants unless they are considered definitely unfit for promotion or unless promotion is ordered by competent authority to be withheld as a measure of punishment, but ought to be given promotion to the higher post. The learned Tribunal held that considering this grading the respondent ought to have been marked atleast as "A" and in the light of that directed that promotion be given to the respondent as Chief Engineer as on 15th July, 1997. The Tribunal noted that respondent has retired on superannuation and he will be entitled to all consequential benefits accordingly. That order is the subject matter of the present writ petition.