Delayed Rectification of Exemption Error: Relief Granted to Retired Engineers.


16 April 2025 Employee Related >> Corporate Law  

Two retired Junior Engineers, Prakash Dhobale and Krishnakumar Pate, who were promoted to Sub-Divisional Engineer and subsequently Executive Engineer in 1995 while aged between 40 and 45, were initially informed they were exempt from the Departmental Professional Examination (DPE) due to an erroneous entry in their service records. According to the Maharashtra Public Works Manual rules cited by the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran (MJP), individuals in this age group were only exempt from all subjects except 'Accounts'.

Based on the incorrect exemption, the Petitioners did not appear for the DPE. However, years later, the MJP issued a circular in 2007 cancelling such erroneously granted exemptions. Consequently, show-cause notices were issued to the Petitioners in late 2009 and early 2010, close to or after their respective superannuation dates (July 2010 and December 2008). Impugned orders were subsequently passed, reverting them to the post of Deputy Engineer.


 

 

The Petitioners challenged these orders, arguing that penalizing them for the MJP's mistake after such a significant delay and after their retirement was unjust. They relied on Supreme Court precedent emphasizing that employees should not suffer for employer errors, especially after a long lapse of time and without any indication of the employees' malintent.

The Bombay High Court, considering the undisputed facts, the sequence of events, and the applicable rules, sided with the Petitioners. The Court found it unreasonable and harsh to penalize the retired engineers for the MJP's error in wrongly granting them full exemption. The delay in rectifying the mistake, especially after their superannuation, was deemed critical. Consequently, the Court allowed both Writ Petitions, directing the Respondents to treat the Petitioners as validly promoted Executive Engineers based on the initial exemption letters, release withheld increments and arrears, revise pensionary benefits, and grant all consequential service benefits with interest. The impugned reversion orders were quashed and set aside. The Court made the rule absolute with no order as to costs.