1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1459 OF 2010 Smt. Kamalbai Wd/o Subhash Surshe, Age : 42 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Khadakdevla (Bk), Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. .. .. Respondents Shri V. D. Hon, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Kadam, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri N. B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 19TH JULY, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [Per P. V. HARDAS, J. ] : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order dated 17.10.2008 passed by the Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Rural Development and Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and the communication dated 10.09.2009 issued by the Desk Officer, Rural Development and Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to extend all service benefits to the petitioner and her children towards the service rendered by her husband deceased Subhash Babulal Surshe with the respondent No. 3/Zilla Parishad Jalgaon. The petitioner also prays for giving all benefits including family pension, GPF, etc. 3. Such of the facts which are necessary for decision of this writ petition may briefly be stated thus : 3 This petition has been filed by the widow of late Subhash Babulal Surshe, who was an employee employed by the respondent No. 3/Zilla Parishad as a Gram Sevak. On 05.04.2004 a show cause notice came to be issued against the husband of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the "Employee" for the sake of brevity). The aforesaid show cause notice alleged absenteeism from service of the "Employee" and, therefore, called upon the "Employee" to show cause as to why departmental action should not be initiated against the employee. The charge sheet came to be issued and ultimately on 08.09.2005 the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. The Enquiry Officer recommended stoppage of increment as punishment. The Chief Executive Officer did not agree with the proposed punishment and accordingly on 21.10.2005 issued a show cause notice to the employee. The employee concerned replied to the show cause notice by reply dated 07.11.2005. The Chief Executive Officer upon considering the reply submitted by the employee by order dated 13.04.2006 terminated the services of the employee. The husband of the petitioner i. e. the employee being aggrieved by the order of Chief Executive Officer, preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. By order dated 24.11.2006 the Divisional Commissioner allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the punishment imposed by the Chief Executive Officer and 4 directed the reinstatement of the employee. Pursuant thereby, on 05th December, 2007 the employee came to be reinstated. It appears that, the Zilla Parishad preferred review before the State Government on 17.10.2008 and the State Government allowed the said review application. The State Government quashed and set aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner and confirmed the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer. The employee, unable to bear the shock of his termination, expired immediately. This is how the present writ petition has been filed by the widow of the deceased employee. 4. Mr. V. D. Hon, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the relevant Rules of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1964. It is urged before us that the remedy of appeal as is available under Rule 13 is restricted to Parishad employee. Similarly the revision under Rule 15 can only be preferred by Parishad employee either to the Chief Executive Officer or the Commissioner of the Division or the State Government. It is further stated that, resort to Rule 24 could not have been resorted by the Zilla Parishad as the power to review the order is expressly conferred and obviously with the authority who has passed the order which is sought to be reviewed. The State Government could not have exercised the 5 powers under Rule 24 for reviewing the order of the Divisional Commissioner. 5. Mr. Nitin Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/Zilla Parishad has vehemently urged before us that the review application was maintainable. The Zilla Parishad had a right to prefer review before the State Government. According to us, the aforesaid submission is without any merit, as the plain reading of the Rule clearly indicates that the review can only be filed before the authority which had passed the order of which review is sought. The aforesaid Rules did not confer any power on the Zilla Parishad to question the decision of the Divisional Commissioner by filing review before the State Government. 6. In that light of the matter, therefore, the order passed by the State government is wholly unjustified and cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed and set aside. Resultantly, this petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 17.10.2008 passed by the Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Rural Development and Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai is hereby quashed and set aside. Since the husband of the petitioner expired in the year 2008, there is no question of grant of any reinstatement to the husband of the petitioner. 6 Suffice it to state that the petitioners, widow and children of the deceased employee, would be entitled to all retiral/service benefits available to them in law. We therefore, direct the respondent No. 3/Zilla Parishad to ensure that all retiral dues of the deceased employee including pension, if permissible, be paid to the petitioner within a period of six months from today. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above said terms with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/July 10