Quashed

Chief Executive Officer Zp Aurangabad v. Sakhu Yeshwant Shelar

Bombay HC27 Oct 2014WP/3892/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, quashed the Industrial Court order that granted permanency and salary difference to an Auxiliary Nursing Midwife. The Court held that a bonded candidate appointed to a temporary post under Government policy has no right to continue the post in perpetuity or claim permanency irrespective of selection process variations.

What did the court decide?

The order passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad, dated 30th April 2001, granting permanency and salary difference to the respondent was quashed and set aside.

Chief Executive Officer Zp Aurangabad Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

W.P. No. 3892 of 2001

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Writ Petition No. 3892 of 2001

¶4

Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, .. Petitioner District : Aurangabad. (Original respondent)

¶5

versus

¶6

Smt. Sakhu Yeshwant Shelar, Aged : 38 years, Occupation : Ex-employee of Zilla Parishad, R/o. Phulshivra, Taluka : Gangapur, .. Respondent District : Aurangabad. (Original complainant)

¶7

Mr. Deelip N. Patil (Bankar), Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. V.L. Dhoble, Advocate, for the respondent (Absent).

¶9

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

¶10

DATE : 27TH OCTOBER 2014

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶12

Heard Mr. D.N. Patil (Bankar), learned Counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent.

¶13

(2) W.P. No. 3892 of 2001

¶14

The petitioner - Zilla Parishad has questioned the order dated 30th April 2001, passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad, in Complaint (ULP) No. 314/1998 at the behest of present respondent.

¶15

It was case of the present respondent before the Industrial Court, that the petitioner are engaged in unfair labour practice and has sought relief under the provisions of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The respondent submits that she has completed her education up to S.S.C. and was deputed for training course of Auxiliary Nursing Midwife which was successfully completed and was accordingly given appointment by the present petitioner - Zilla Parishad. The claim of the respondent - employee is based upon the order of appointment dated 19-11-1996. The respondent - employee claims that once she was appointed against clear vacancy for a period of two years, same has to be termed as an appointment on permanent basis. According to the respondent, since the present petitioner was trying to terminate her services, she has approached the Industrial Court praying therein grant of status of permanency.

¶16

The learned Member of the Industrial Court, after considering the reply filed by the present petitioner - employer and evidence led before it, has passed the order against the petitioner - employer directing the petitioner - employer to give permanency and regular post to the complainant and has refused the claim for her salary i.e. difference between pay of permanent and temporary employee. As such, present writ petition.

¶17

(3) W.P. No. 3892 of 2001

¶18

The said order is questioned by the petitioner - employer on the ground that the order of appointment was in view of the policy of the Government. Policy of the Government contemplates grant of appointment purely on temporary basis to a person who has completed training of Auxiliary Nursing Midwife for a period of two years as bonded candidate. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue, as regards, bonded candidate cannot claim status of a permanent employee, is no more res integra . The said issue is already decided by this Court in catena of decisions. One of such decision delivered in Writ Petition No. 254 of 1999 on 22-3-1999, is sought to be relied upon by the petitioner.

¶19

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Industrial Court has lost sight of the scheme qua appointment of candidate who has completed training of Auxiliary Nursing Midwife for a period of two years, as such, treated respondent as bonded candidate and wrongly conferred status of permanency on the respondent by the impugned order.

¶20

After considering rival contentions of the parties, this Court had an occasion to consider the scheme qua appointment of auxiliary Nursing Midwife particularly having regard to the policy of Government. Policy contemplates an appointment on permanent post only after following due process of selection in accordance with law. Candidate recommended as bonded candidate has to occupy post only for temporary period i.e. for bond period of two years. Upon availability of the candidate duly selected by Selection Board, the candidate irrespective of bond has no right to continue the said post in perpetuity. To support above observation,

¶21

(4) W.P. No. 3892 of 2001

¶22

reliance can be placed on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Megha Vs. State , reported in 2014 II CLR 629 .

¶23

In addition to above, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court to the order dated 17-7-2003, issued by the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, upon written instructions received by him from the District Health Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, vide letter dated 19th August 2014, submits that the respondent herein was selected and appointed by the Zilla Parishad after she has undergone regular selection process through District Selection Board.

¶24

In that view of the matter, the order which is questioned in the present petition, passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Aurangabad, in Complaint (ULP) No. 314 of 1998, is not sustainable. The order dated 30th April 2001, passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Aurangabad, is quashed and set aside.

¶25

Rule made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

bgp/ wp3892

Chief Executive Officer Zp Aurangabad v. Sakhu Yeshwant Shelar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chief Executive Officer Zp Aurangabad v. Sakhu Yeshwant Shelar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amarchand Swarupchand Gandhi. Vs Eknath Gangaram Jadhav and Others.

The Co-Operative Industrial Estate Ltd. Pachora Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kundanbai Mannasing Bais Vs Nanded Municipal Council Thorugh C.O. Nanded

Suryakant Vasantrao Chate through Father Vasantrao Bhanudas Chate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Abdul Karim Abdul Khaliq and Another Vs Marathwada Depressed Class League Hostel

Rama Manjaji Satpute Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others