(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 4626 OF 2008 Anil s/o. Govindrao Bagade (Salunke), Age : 49 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Lane No.5, House No.1358, "Shrikrupa", Dhule, Taluka & District : Dhule. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Commissioner, Dhule Municipal Corporation, Dhule, Taluka & District : Dhule. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Dhule. 4. Enquiry Officer, Shri N.U. Pawar, Age : Adult, Occupation : Service (Head Clerk), Dhule Municipal Corporation, Dhule. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 to 4. (2) .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 24TH AUGUST 2009. COURT'S ORDER (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The limited grievance raised in the present petition is that the appeal which was filed by the present petitioner, against the order dated 4th August 2003, has been rejected by the appellate authority, as it was not filed within 30 days, as required under Section 56(4) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. It is the contention of the petitioner, that since the service conditions of the employees of the Corporation are regulated by the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules, 1981, the appeal would be required to be filed within 45 days, under Rule 18. 3. Undisputedly, in view of Section 493, read with Appendix IV, of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, the provisions which stood on the date of establishment of the Corporation would be applicable to the employees of the Corporation, unless they are superseded by some other provisions. 4. From the perusal of Resulution dated 4th May 1989, it would reveal that the erstwhile Municipal Council has adopted the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services Rules, 1981. In that view of the (3) matter, grievance of the petitioner is justified. The appeal, which is preferred by the petitioner, is admittedly within 45 days and, as such, within limitation. 5. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (i) The appellate authority is directed to consider the appeal filed by the present petitioner, on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible and within a period of three months from today. (ii) It is further made clear that until decision of the said appeal, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner, either on the basis of the order dated 4th August 2003 or show cause notice dated 24th June 2008. (iii) It is made clear that this court has not considered the merits of the matter and appeal would be decided on the basis of the material that would be placed before the appellate authority. 6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp4626