1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD First Appeal No.191 of 1996 Shankar s/o Vishwanath Dastapure age 64 years, occup. Retired Govt. Servant, r/of Parmanand Visawa Nagar, Nanded. ... appellant/ ori. Plaintiff. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Nanded. 2. The Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. Shah Nagar, Nanded 3. The Executive Engineer, PWD Nanded. ... respondents/ defendants ------- Shri S.A. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, AGP, for Respondents. 2 CORAM: P.R. Borkar, jJ DATE: 9th June 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT. 01. This is an appeal preferred by original plaintiff, whose special civil suit No.202 of 1994 was dismissed by learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, on 22.12.1995. Suit was for damages of Rs.3,00,000/= and also for mandatory injunction, directing defendants to issue registration of contractorship (Class V certificate) in favour of the plaintiff. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff is that he was working as Executive Engineer in Public Works Department. He retired on superannuation on 21.12.1989. As per Government Resolution No. CTA-1679-1950 dated 10.4.1984, appellant was entitled to be registered as Class V contractor. He applied to Respondent No. 2 for enrolling as Class V contractor, but that application was dismissed. The appellant moved the Chief Engineer, PWD, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad for registering him as Class V Contractor. However, that request was also rejected. The Plaintiff, therefore, filed suit for damages of Rs.3.00 lacs and also for mandatory direction to enroll him as Class V contractor. 3. Respondents-Defendants filed written statement at Exh.12. They admitted that the Plaintiff was working as Executive Engineer, PWD, Parbhani and retired on superannuation on 31.12.1989. However, departmental enquiries were pending against him about his acts as Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Parbhani and the Government Resolution dated 10.4.1984 is applicable to retired engineers, having satisfactory service record and as such, the appellant – plaintiff is not entitled to registration as 3 Class V contractor. Respondents, therefore, prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division framed necessary issues and came to the conclusion that the service record of the appellant-plaintiff was not satisfactory and, therefore, he was not entitled to any relief. 5 Only point that arises for consideration is whether the appellant- plaintiff is entitled to direct registration as Class V contractor, as claimed by him. My answer to the same is in the negative for the following reasons. 6. Heard learned counsel for respective parties. Advocate Shri Kulkarni vehemently submitted that the case of the appellant-plaintiff does not fall under the exceptions and the trial court committed an error in dismissing the suit. Learned Civil Judge has relied upon relevant portion from the Government Resolution dated 10.4.1984 produced at Exh.47. Learned Judge has also reproduced the same in paragraph 7 of his judgment and the opening part of it reads as follows; The retired engineers or the resigned engineers of the categories of Executive Engineers and above shall be eligible for granting direct registration in Class V while the engineers at lower level will be enrolled in Class VI of revised category of general works as well as in Class C/D category of Electrical works respectively. This concession may however, not be granted to persons who were compulsorily retired by way of punishment and with unsatisfactory record of service. 7. The Respondents have produced evidence to show that the appellant was facing departmental enquiries in respect of certain acts committed 4 during his tenure as Executive Engineer. The orders of government regarding departmental enquiries are produced at Exh. 40 to 46. There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff ever challenged those orders initiating departmental enquiries against him. Relevant portion of the Government Resolution reproduced hereinabaove clearly shows that the concession regarding direct registration in Class V contractorship is not available to persons compulsorily retired or persons with unsatisfactory record of service. 8 It is not disputed that when the application for registration was made and was rejected, the departmental enquiries were pending. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said at that stage that the record of the appellant – plaintiff was satisfactory and he was entitled to direct registration as Class V contractor. In this view of the matter, learned Civil Judge did not commit any error in dismissing the suit of the appellant-plaintiff. 9. Hence, appeal being devoid of any merits, is dismissed. (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/oo fa191.96