This story is from March 6, 2019

Bombay high court summons Mumbai civic chief

The Bombay high court on Tuesday Issue notice to the Mumbai civic chief Ajoy Mehta, to remain present in court personally on Friday at 3pm and "show cause as to why no action is taken against him for interference with justice.
Bombay high court summons Mumbai civic chief
File photo of Mumbai civic chief Ajoy Mehta.
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Tuesday issued notice to the Mumbai civic chief Ajoy Mehta to remain present in court at 3pm on Friday and "show cause as to why action should not be taken against him for interference with justice."
A bench of justices Bhushan Gavai and NJ Jamadar passed the order while observing the BMC had "coerced" 25 employees into withdrawing a petition for promotion as junior engineers by assuring them of appointment in 2016, but that was never done.
1x1 polls

“We find that the present case is squarely covered by promissory estoppel," said the bench while dictating the order in open court. Promissory estoppel is a legal principle where a promise is enforceable by law, when such promise, even if made without formal consideration, was relied on in good faith by the person to whom it was made, to his or her disadvantage.
The bunch of employees were in court against the BMC for not having been promoted despite the assurance on the basis of which they had withdrawn a petition filed in 2014. Their counsel Atul Damle and Joel Carlos said that the HC had given a status quo and restrained BMC from filling up the 25 posts under its 20 per cent quota in Junior Engineer (Civil) cadre. The employees had received diplomas from institutions recognized by the University Grants Commission.
But Ravi Shetty special counsel for BMC said a mistake was committed in appointment of 10 similarly circumstanced employees in 2016 and for a wrong decision, estoppel principles will not apply. Shetty also said that these 25 employees "don’t have a right to say that the same mistake is repeated by BMC" because their diploma is not recognised by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Maharashtra as is required."
The bench observed, “An employee is not in bargaining position with employer. He is persuaded, rather coerced, to withdraw petition. We find it amounts to interference in administration of justice.
author
About the Author
Swati Deshpande

Swati Deshpande is Senior editor at The Times of India, Mumbai, where she has been covering courts for over a decade. She is passionate about law and works towards enlightening people about their statutory, legal and fundamental rights. She makes it her job to decipher for the public the truth, be it in an intricate civil dispute or in a gruesome criminal case.

End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA