STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. PRAKASH CHANDULAL RATHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 10th July 2003 passed by the Maharashtra administrative Tribunal, Mumbai in Original Application no. 56 of 2003 which directs them to permit Respondent no. 1 to resume duty as Assistant Draftsman-cum-Under secretary. The Tribunal has allowed the Original application filed by Respondent No. 1 mainly on the ground that he continued to have a lien on the post of assistant Draftsman-cum-Under Secretary during the period he was appointed as a Judge of the Labour Court, mumbai. The Tribunal was of the view that since a similarly placed person was permitted to continue his lien on the post of Assistant Draftsman-cum-Under secretary, Respondent No. 1 should have not been terminated from service but ought to have been repatriated to his original post.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 was appointed on 1st February 1990 on probation as an Assistant Draftsman-cum-Under secretary. He continued to be on probation for a further period of six months as his work was not found to be satisfactory. Thereafter, he was appointed to officiate on a long term basis on the same post from 1st august 1992. Respondent No. 1 appeared for the maharashtra Public Service Commission examinations held and was appointed to the post of a Judge of the Labour court, Mumbai. By an order dated 9th February 1993, he was relieved from the post of Assistant draftsman-cum-Under Secretary, Law and Judiciary department with effect from 10th February 1993 while informing him that he could not retain lien on the post. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1's service as a Judge of the labour Court, Mumbai was found wanting. Marital disputes resulting in a Criminal Complaint filed against him, reports of his relations with the bar and his colleagues on the bench reflected poorly on his conduct as a Judge and, therefore, a report was sent for appropriate action in that regard. The services of respondent No. 1 as a Judge of the Labour Court were terminated on 5th July 1997. Respondent No. 1, therefore, sought reinstatement on the post of Assistant draftsman-cum-Under Secretary by his application dated 21st August 1997. This application was made on the footing that Respondent No. 1 retained lien on his original post. The Petitioners having rejected the representation, Respondent No. 1 filed Original application No. 56 of 2003 before the Maharashtra administrative Tribunal Mumbai.

(3.) The Tribunal allowed the Original Application by holding that Respondent No. 1 continued to retain lien on his post as Assistant Draftsman-cum-Under Secretary. The Tribunal was of the view that the Petitioners ought to have given same relief to Respondent No. 1 as was extended to one Mr. M. B. Bhosale who was relieved from the post of a Judge of the Labour Court and was repatriated to the original post since he continued to retain a lien over that post.