Writ Petition No. 1439 of 1999. Case: The State of Maharashtra Vs Sanjivani Shripad Ranade. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 1439 of 1999 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: A.H. Laddad, Asst. Government Pleader and For Respondents: A.C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate |
| Judges | A.P. Bhangale and C.V. Bhadang, JJ. |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | September 11, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
A.P. Bhangale, J.
-
Heard submissions at the Bar. The Petitioner State of Maharashtra impugns judgment and order dated 17th November 1998 passed by the Member (Judicial) of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 184 of 1996. The Tribunal has directed the petitioners to treat period between 2.9.1985 to 10.3.1993 as a period spent on duty by the respondent-employee. However, the Tribunal has held that the respondent would be entitled to half of her salary for the said period. She was also held to be entitled to increments, HRA and admissible allowances for the said period.
-
Facts are:-
By an order dated 02-08-1967 respondent was appointed as an Medical officer class III. She had joined duty from 09-08-1968. In 1976 she was confirmed on the said post. On 03-11-1978 she was promoted as Class II Medical officer. She joined but was transferred from Balapur to Akola by order dated 23-06-1983. On 21-08-1985, she was again transferred from Akola to Balapur, even before completing her normal tenure, that too without any administrative exigency. Respondent had challenged her transfer order before the High Court. By order dated 05-09-1985 status quo was ordered. Respondent had served the status quo order upon the petitioner on 07-09-1985. Respondent was allowed to work from 07-09-1985 till 20-09-1985 and thereafter was prevented from signing the muster roll. Respondent had explained to the Authorities that she was available for the work but she was not permitted to work in the office and was kept away from the duty unlawfully on the pretext that she must await for further order from the higher authorities. Respondent, therefore, filed the Original Application challenging the inaction on the part of present petitioners in deciding the claim of respondent for salary for the period from 2.9.1985 to 10.3.1994. It is revealed from the additional affidavit filed on behalf of present petitioners before the Tribunal that period between 2.9.1985 to 10.3.1993 has been treated as extraordinary leave without pay.
-
Petitioner had set up an inquiry against the respondent and charge sheet was issued to the respondent on the ground that the respondent though transferred to Akot by an order dated 21-08-1985 she purposefully and deliberately avoided to hand over the charge. The respondent was exonerated from all the charges. The Government had accepted the exoneration by the resolution dated 04-11-1993. On 11-03 1993 the...
To continue reading
Request your trial