1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 693 / 2011 (Suresh V.Raut vs. State of Maharashtra and others ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : D.D.SINHA & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ DATED : 14th February, 2011. Heard Mr. D. Duvvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 8.12.2010 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench Nagpur, whereby the Original Application of the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground mentioned in paragraph 17 of the order which reads thus: “It is pertinent to note that at the time of absorption, the applicants gave their final options accepting the pay scales of their respective posts. While giving final options, the applicants were fully aware that they were accepting lesser pay scale while being absorbed in Government service. It is difficult to believe that the applicants had no other go but to give final option. The 2 applicants could have refused to give final option in which case they would not have been absorbed in Govt. service and would have been continued in the service of the local authority concerned or might have been terminated if the post was not available with the local authority. It seems that in order to avoid the risk of termination, the applicants though it fit to accept lesser pay scale. Now, they cannot go back and pray for protection of the pay which they were drawing soon before their absorption in Govt. service. “ Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the observations made by the Tribunal are not based on the evidence. It is submitted that the petitioner has never opted for the absorption in the Government service and wanted to continue in his original post of Inspector Grade I. It is contended that the option which was obtained by the authorities was under duress and pressures and, therefore, that cannot be treated to be an option in law. It is submitted that since the above exercise by the petitioner was not voluntary, the subsequent absorption of the petitioner in the Government service is bad and cannot be sustained in law. It is submitted that the Tribunal ignored all these vital aspects and issues and, therefore, the impugned 3 order of the Tribunal is misconceived and cannot be sustained in law. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order passed. It is very difficult at this belated stage to agree with the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel, that in the year 2004 the option was obtained by the authorities was under duress or under pressure. It is a fact that the option was given by the petitioner to be absorbed in the Government service in the year 2004 itself. On the basis of said option, the petitioner was absorbed in Government service which has a pay scale lower than the one which the petitioner was getting as Inspector Grade-I in the earlier cadre. The Tribunal has also observed that the option appeared to have been given by the petitioner in order to avoid the risk of termination and, therefore, the petitioner thought it fit to accept the lesser pay scale. It is in these circumstances, according to us, the impugned order does not require any interference. No case is made out for showing indulgence. Writ Petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE sahare