Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply And Trasnsport Undertaking v. Kashinath Narvekar

Megha 40_wp_18112_2024.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.18112 OF 2024 Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking through its General Manager

...Petitioner

V/s.

Kashinath Narvekar

...Respondent

_____________ Mr. Arsh Mishra for the Petitioner.

_____________

CORAM

: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATED : 12 December 2024.

P.C. :

1) There are multiple reasons why this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Petition. Firstly, the Petition is filed on 30 September 2024 challenging the order dated 10 January 2022 passed by the Commissioner for Welfare of Disabled Persons, Maharashtra State. Thus, the Petition has been filed after delay of MEGHA SHREEDHAR PARAB two years and 7 months. Secondly, the Petitioner erroneously MEGHA SHREEDHAR PARAB Date: 2024.12.14 15:01:03 +0530 discharged the services of Respondent -employee on account of acquisition of disability by him consequent to his medical examination by the Disability Board on 8 December 2017. Such a Page No.

1 of 12 December 2024

Megha 40_wp_18112_2024.docx course of action adopted by the Petitioner is against the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016. 2) I am also not impressed by contention of Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that Medical Board of Government of Maharashtra issued Certificate dated 4 February 2018 rejecting the application for disability certificate, on account of which Petitioner is not in a position to offer him alternate employment.

3) In my view, the Petitioner cannot adopt two mutually destructive pleas of discharging the services of Respondent on the ground of acquisition of disability and also cite the pretext of Certificate dated 4 February 2018 issued by the Medical Board of Government of Maharashtra rejecting the application for disability certificate. Even otherwise, there is no valid ground for this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction considering the fact that Petition is filed after delay of two years and 7 months. The impugned order only results in payment of salary and wages to the Respondent w.e.f. 14 July 2017 till he attained the age of superannuation.

4) Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No.

2 of 12 December 2024