Sopan Vishvanath Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

( 1 ) wp1064.98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 1064 OF 1998 WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10749 OF 2010

¶5

Sopan s/o. Vishvanath Gaikwad..Petitioner
Age. 52 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Kallam, Tq. Kallam,
Dist. Osmanabad.

¶6

Versus
1.The State of Maharashtra..Respondents
2.The Secretary to Govt. of Maharashtra
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3.Director of Animal Husbandry,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
4.Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad,
Through its Chief Executive Officer,
Dist. Osmanabad.
5.Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Bhoom,
Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad.
Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.P. More, AGP for respondent/State.
Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for respondent No.5.

¶7

CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE &
A.I.S. CHEEMA,JJ.
DATED :08.10.2014

¶8

( 2 ) wp1064.98

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER : A.V. NIRGUDE,J.]:-

¶10

1.This petition challenges order dated 10th
December, 1997, passed by the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, disposing of
Transfer Application No.9 of 1996 for want of
jurisdiction.

¶11

2.The petitioner was appointed as Extension
Officer, Animal Husbandry, Class III, Grade-2 under Zilla
Parishad Ratnagiri. He served there till 1977. He
submitted his resignation from service. Thereafter, in
August, 1977, the petitioner secured new appointment in
Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad for a period of six months on
adhoc basis. On completion of six months period, similar
orders were issued for continuing him in service on 10th
February, 1978, 19th August, 1978, 16th February, 1979,
20th August, 1979, 6th May, 1980. Because of these
orders, the employer effected breaks in service of the
petitioner. However, after 6th November, 1980, the
petitioner was not given fresh order. Before he could
complete the last tenure of six months, he proceeded on
leave. He submitted application for joining on 12th
October, 1980, but was not given posting order.

¶12

3.In February, 1981, the petitioner was arrested
in a criminal case. In 1985 he was acquitted vide order
passed by this Court. The petitioner, thereafter,
reported for duty to Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, but he
was asked to wait. In 1986, the Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad informed him that the post which he held
earlier was then upgraded as Class II and therefore it is
the State Government, who can appoint him on such post.

¶13

4.The petitioner, thereafter, made representation
after representation, but in-vain. In 1996, the
petitioner claimed that he had acquired status of
Government servant by virtue of service between 1977 to
1980 etc. This claim of the petitioner was rejected by
the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, holding that
they did not possess jurisdiction to decide such
question. Thereafter, the petitioner filed this petition
for seeking following reliefs :-

¶14

“(B)By issuing appropriate writ or
directions in the nature of writ, the order
dated 10-12-1997 passed by the Honourable
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at
Aurangabad disposing of petitioner's Transfer
Application No.9 of 1996 and Writ Petition
No.1671 of 1996, may kindly be quashed and set
aside and the petitioner's said Transfer
Application/Writ Petition be remanded to the
Honourable Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,

¶15

( 4 ) wp1064.98

¶16

Bench at Aurangabad for further hearing on merit
and disposal according to law.

¶17

(C)In the alternative, a writ or order or
direction in the nature of writ, may kindly be
issued setting aside the impugned order of
Honourable Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
and to call back and restore Writ Petition
No.1671 of 1996 in this Honourable Court for
hearing and final disposal on merit.”

¶18

5.With the help of learned Counsel for the
parties, we perused the documents and realized that the
petitioner has hardly any case on merit. He worked for
Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad for about 2½ years with breaks
in service on four occasions. His appointment was on
adhoc basis. When in 1985, he returned back to Zilla
Parishad, he was given a clear indication that he could
approach the Government for getting his job back.
Apparently, the petitioner did not enter into competitive
exams for acquiring similar job with the Government. He
kept making representations that since he worked for
Zilla Parishad for about 2½ years, he was entitled to
appointment in the Government. This claim of the
petitioner was without any basis. The petitioner was not
in Government service, even for one day. He was in the
service of Zilla Parishad, as said above for 2½ years.
In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to
any service benefits. With the result, the petition

¶19

should fail. The writ petition stands dismissed. Rule
discharged.

¶20

6.We are thankful to the learned Counsel for the
petitioner for assisting us by getting relevant documents
under the provisions of Right to Information Act from the
Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad.

¶21

7.In view of disposal of the writ petition,
connected Civil Application does not survive and stands
disposed of.

¶22

[A.I.S. CHEEMA,J.][A.V. NIRGUDE,J.]

¶23

snk /2014/OCT14/wp1064.98

Sopan Vishvanath Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sopan Vishvanath Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajaram Balwant Mahandule Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Prafull Devidasrao Shinde and Anr.

Sajiya Parveen Abdul Rauf and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Kisan Baburao Wakale and Ors.

Syed Shaukat Ali Syed Inamuddin Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Eknath Subhash Lomate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another