1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2950 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra and ors. : Petitioners. Versus Mr. Pandurang Sakharam Mali : Respondent. Mr.A D Kango, AGP for the Petitioners. Mr. Chandrakant B Mali for the Respondent. CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR, R. M. SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 06th May 2010 P.C. : 1 Heard counsel for the parties. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr. Chandrakant Mali waives notice for the Respondent. 3 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the decision of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 16th April 2009 in Original Application No.744 of 2008. 2 4 Since this writ petition was filed on 1st April 2010 to challenge the above said decision, we called upon the Petitioners to explain the circumstances in which they took almost one year to file this Petition. That has now been explained in the affidavit of Sunil Janardan Karekar, Deputy Controller (Admini.) Milk Transport Service, Greater Mumbai Milk Scheme, dated 4th May 2010. On going through the details furnished in the said affidavit, we do not think it necessary to examine the question of laches any further as we are convinced by the explanation offered therein. 5 Accordingly we would straight away examine the challenge to the correctness of the decision impugned in this petition. The principal argument of the Petitioners is that the Respondent was compulsory retired from the service on 21st November 1990, whereas the Tribunal has decided the matter on the basis of the provisions which had no application to the case on hand. For, the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension), Rules, 1982, in particular Rule 62 came to be amended with effect from 7th December 1994 thereby clause 5A was introduced in Rule 62. The Tribunal, however, has referred to Rule 62(5A) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, which, as aforesaid, has no application as the same was introduced in 3 the year 1994. This aspect has been glossed over by the Tribunal. 6 The counsel for the Respondent has not seriously disputed the above position but would contend that the operative order passed by the Tribunal can be sustained even on the basis of the sub-rule (6) of Rule 62 of the same Pension Rules. If this contention were to be accepted, this Court would be substituting the substance of the reasons given by the Tribunal. If this argument is available to the Respondent, the appropriate course would be to relegate the Respondent before the Tribunal for re-consideration of the Original Application on its own merits. The Tribunal will have to examine the efficacy of Rule 62(6) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982 as also keep in mind that Rule 62(5A) will have no application to the case in hand which was introduced only in the year 1994 and cannot be given retrospective effect. 7 In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and, in stead the Original Application No.744 of 2008 is restored to file of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal for re-consideration on its own merits in accordance with law. 4 8 We make it clear that all questions are left open to be re- examined by the Tribunal afresh. 9 Since the Original Application No.744 of 2008 is restored to file of the Tribunal in terms of this order, we hope and trust that the Tribunal would expeditiously dispose of the said proceedings and preferably within six months from today. 10 Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute on the above terms. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)