Advocates:
['NARWADKAR MRIGESH D', 'R P PHATAKE', '', 'R/ AND SERVED', 'GODSAY SATISH M']

Writ Petition No.15/2011

(( 1 ))

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 15 OF 2011

Shripad s/o Shrirang Pasarkar

Age 57 years, Occu. Service,

presently working as Executive

Engineer (C), Thermal Power Station,

Maharashtra State Power Generation

Company Ltd., Parli, District Beed

…

PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.

Managing Director,

Maharashtra State Power Generation

Company Ltd., Plot No.G-9,

Prakash Gadh, Bandra (East), Mumbai

(Respondent No.1 is deleted as per

Court's order dated 8/7/2013)

2.

Executive Director,

Human Resources,

Maharashtra State Power Generation

Company Ltd., Plot No.G-9,

Prakash Gadh, Bandra (East), Mumbai

3.

Chief General Manager, Technical,

Maharashtra State Power Generation

Company Ltd., Plot No.G-9,

Prakash Gadh, Bandra (East), Mumbai

…

RESPONDENTS

…..

Shri M.D. Narwadkar, Advocate for petitioner

Shri S.M. Godsay, Advocate for respondent No.2

…..

Writ Petition No.15/2011

(( 2 ))

CORAM:

T.V. NALAWADE

AND

SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

DATED :

28th MARCH, 2018.

JUDGMENT (PER SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.):

1.

By filing this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashment of

letter dated 29.8.2008 and 3.4.2010, with consequential prayers

for directions to grant deemed date of promotion as Executive

Engineer in Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd.

(hereinafter referred as “Company”). Respondent No.1 is

Managing Director of the Company. Respondent No.2 is

Executive Director and respondent No.3 is Chief General Manager

(Technical) of the Company.

2.

Undisputed facts in between the parties are that,

petitioner was selected as Junior Engineer in the Company on

4.8.1976 and in the year 1981, promoted as Assistant Engineer.

Thereafter, petitioner was promoted as Deputy Executive

Engineer in the year 1992.

3.

Shri M.D. Narwadkar, learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that, the process of promotion for the post

of Executive Engineer was carried out in the year 2006.

However, that time, the name of the petitioner was not

considered through he was eligible and seniormost officer. When

Writ Petition No.15/2011

(( 3 ))

petitioner made representation to respondent No.3, raising

grievance regarding not considering his name for promotion on

15.9.2006, that time, by letter dated 4.12.2006, the petitioner

was informed that, though his name was placed before

competent selection committee, it was not recommended on the

ground of pendency of enquiry and record of petitioner was not

up to the mark. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out

that, on 17.11.2006, explanation of the petitioner was called by

respondents and on 28.3.2007, the proceeding was dropped and

enquiry was closed. Thereafter on 4.4.2008, petitioner was

promoted as Executive Engineer. However, when petitioner

made representation to the respondents to grant deemed date of

promotion with retrospective effect from 4.9.2006 and to restore

his seniority, the said representation was turned down by the

respondents, without reasonable cause.

4.

Learned Advocate for respondents submitted that, in

the meeting of competent selection committee for promotion to

the post of Executive Engineer held on 27.7.2006 and on

10.11.2006, after considering various confidential reports,

vigilance report and disciplinary action, the competent selection

committee did not select the petitioner on the ground of

pendency of disciplinary enquiry and earlier record of petitioner

which was not up to the mark on both occasions. He pointed out

that, by letter dated 29.8.2008 (Exhibit R-1), the petitioner was

Writ Petition No.15/2011

(( 4 ))

informed as to why he was not selected for the post of Executive

Engineer on 27.7.2006 and on 10.11.2006. By the same letter,

the petitioner was informed that, his seniority cannot be restored