1 WP / 4572 / 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 4572 OF 2019

Nagnath S/o Gyanba Jadhav,

Age : 66 years, Occu : Retired

Samata Niwas in front of Civil

Court, Tq. Ausa, District – Latur

.. Petitioner

Versus

1] The State of Maharashtra,

Through : Secretary,

Revenue Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.

2] The Commissioner,

Aurangabad Division,

Aurangabad

3] The Collector,

Latur

.. Respondents

...

Advocate for petitioner : Mr. S.D. Dhongade

AGP for the respondent – State : Mrs. R.P. Gour

...

CORAM

: MANGESH S. PATIL &

SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.

DATE

: 30 SEPTEMBER 2022

ORAL ORDER (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) :

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Mrs. Gour, AGP

waives service for the respondent – State. At the joint request of the

parties, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2 WP / 4572 / 2019

2.

By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the

judgment and order dated 12-02-2019 passed by the Maharashtra

Administrative Tribunal Bench Bench at Aurangabad in Original

Application no. 611 of 2017.

3.

In his original application, the petitioner had sought

following prayers :

“A) This original application may kindly be allowed with

costs.

B)

The respondents may kindly be directed to grant

the applicant deemed date of promotion as

Tahsildar from 13.2.2006 the date on which

employees junior to the applicant are promoted,

with all consequential benefits.

C)

The respondents also kindly be directed to release

one annual increment of the applicant due on

1.1.2017 and to re-fix his pay and pension with all

consequential benefits.

D)

The respondents may kindly be directed to

implement the order dated 17.3.2007 issued by the

Govt. granting deemed date of promotion as

Nayab Tahsildar to the applicant from 14.1.1998

onwards with all consequential benefits including

further promotion.

E)

Any other equitable and appropriate relief to which

the applicants are found due and entitled in the

facts & circumstances of the case may kindly be

granted in favour of the applicants.”

4.

It appears that, when the Original Application was taken up

for hearing, the advocate appearing for the petitioner proposed to give

3 WP / 4572 / 2019

up certain prayers and to press the rest of the prayers. Accordingly, the

Tribunal has recorded in the impugned judgment as under :-

“8. During the course of hearing, learned Advocate for

the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant is not

pressing prayer clause 9 (b) and (d) regarding deemed

date of promotion on the post of Tahasildar and

implementation of order dated 17.3.2007. He has

submitted that the Applicant is pressing only prayer

clause 9(b) as regards release of one annual increment

which was due on 1.1.2007 and re-fixation of the pay and

pension.

9.

Since, the Applicant has not pressed the prayer

clause 9(b) and (d). The only issue for my consideration

is regarding the prayer clause 9(c) made by the

Applicant in the Application.”

Perusal of paragraphs no. 8 and 9 of the impugned judgment and order

indicates that there is no clarity as to which prayer was given up and

which prayer was pressed. This is because in paragraph no. 8 of the

order, the Tribunal has observed that the petitioner was pressing only

prayer clause 9(b) whereas in paragraph no. 9 of the order, the

Tribunal has observed that it was considering the prayer clause 9(c).

5.

Today, Mr. Dhongade, learned advocate appearing for the

petitioner continues to press prayer for release of the promo