GIRISH KUMAR vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. Supreme Court, 10-05-2019
| Judge | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
| Docket Number | C.A. No.-004894-004894 / 2019 |
| Parties | GIRISH KUMARSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA |
| Date | 10 May 2019 |
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4894 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) No. 2784 of 2011)
Girish Kumar …Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad passed in L.P.A.
No. 209/2010 in Writ Petition No. 5437 of 2010, by which a
Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said letters
1
patent appeal preferred by the appellant herein and has
confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single
Judge, the original appellant before the High Court in Letters
Patent Appeal has preferred the present appeal.
3. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are
as under:
That the appellant herein – Girish Kumar was
appointed as Senior Assistant on 26.6.2001. That thereafter he
was promoted to the post of Office Superintendent by order dated
12.10.2007, however, with effect from 7.10.2005. One Govind
Jerale, appointed as Junior Assistant on 8.9.1994, was promoted
to the post of Senior Assistant on 6.11.1999. Respondent No.3
herein was appointed as Junior Assistant on 29.8.1994. He was
suspended from service sometime in the year 1999. His
suspension was revoked and he was reinstated on 17.7.2001.
That thereafter he was exonerated in departmental enquiry on
15.6.2006. That thereafter he was promoted as Senior Assistant
on 1.7.2006. However, in view of the fact that he was exonerated
in departmental enquiry, considering Rule 5 of the Maharashtra
Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Seniority Rules, 1982’), Respondent No.3 was
2
To continue reading
Request your trial