Allowed

The State of Mah and Ors. v. Shaikh Hanif Shaikh Salim

Bombay HC23 Jun 2014WP/4585/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench allowed Maharashtra State petitions challenging Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal orders in retrenchment cases. Found government resolutions claiming fresh employment for CRT regularization were invalid as they obliterated prior service. Praised Tribunal for affirming continuity of service. Urded withdrawal of impugned resolutions.

What did the court decide?

Government resolutions dated 24.8.2011 and 14.9.2011 be withdrawn expeditiously within six months from the date of order.

The State of Mah and Ors. Vs Shaikh Hanif Shaikh Salim — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.4585/2013

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & others.
...Petitioners..

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shaikh Hanif Shaikh Salim.

¶8

...Respondent...

¶9

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO.4598/2013

¶11

The State of Maharashtra & others.
...Petitioners..

¶12

Versus

¶13

Datta Baburao Misal.

¶14

...Respondent..

¶15

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶16

WRIT PETITION NO.4599/2013

¶17

The State of Maharashtra & others.
...Petitioners..

¶18

Versus

¶19

Babasaheb Vitthalrao Pawar.
...Respondent..

¶20

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO.4600/2013

¶22

The State of Maharashtra & others.
...Petitioners..

WP 4585/13 & others

- 2 -

Versus

Ramrao Sunderrao Thakur.

¶27

...Respondent..

¶28

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO.4605/2013

¶30

The State of Maharashtra & others.

¶31

...Petitioners..

¶32

Versus

¶33

Pandit Narayan Kachre.

¶34

...Respondent..

¶35

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶36

WRIT PETITION NO.4606/2013

¶37

The State of Maharashtra & others.
...Petitioners..

¶38

Versus

¶39

Raghunath Bhimrao Kulkarni.

¶40

...Respondent..

¶41

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶42

WRIT PETITION NO.4607/2013

¶43

The State of Maharashtra & others.

¶44

...Petitioners..

¶45

Versus

¶46

Arjun Bhagwanrao Deshmukh.

¶47

...Respondent..

¶48

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶49

WP 4585/13 & others

¶50

- 3 -

¶51

WRIT PETITION NO.4608/2013

¶52

The State of Maharashtra & others.

¶53

...Petitioners..

¶54

Versus

¶55

Bhagwan Shamrao Paghal.

¶56

...Respondent..

¶57

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶58

WRIT PETITION NO.4609/2013

¶59

The State of Maharashtra & others.
...Petitioners..

¶60

Versus

¶61

Manohar Shivrao Kulkarni.

¶62

...Respondent..

¶63

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶64

WRIT PETITION NO.4647/2013

¶65

The State of Maharashtra & others.
...Petitioners..

¶66

Versus

¶67

Sakharam Deorao Pawar.

¶68

...Respondent..

¶69

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶70

WRIT PETITION NO.4648/2013

¶71

The State of Maharashtra & others.
...Petitioners..

¶72

Versus

¶73

Vasant Kisanrao Dharmadhikari.

¶74

...Respondent..

¶75

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶76

WP 4585/13 & others

¶77

- 4 -

¶78

WRIT PETITION NO.4649/2013

¶79

The State of Maharashtra & others.
...Petitioners..

¶80

Versus

¶81

Sheshrao Satwaji Khandagale.
...Respondent..

¶82

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶83

WRIT PETITION NO.4653/2013

¶84

The State of Maharashtra & others.
...Petitioners..

¶85

Versus

¶86

Subhash Deorao Mahale.

¶87

...Respondent..

¶88

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶89

WRIT PETITION NO.4654/2013

¶90

The State of Maharashtra & others.
...Petitioners..

¶91

Versus

¶92

Dattatraya Narayan Taur.

¶93

...Respondent..

¶94

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶95

WRIT PETITION NO.4655/2013

¶96

The State of Maharashtra & others.
...Petitioners..

¶97

WP 4585/13 & others

¶98

- 5 -

¶99

Versus

¶100

Baburao Ramdhan Pawar.

¶101

...Respondent..

¶102

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶103

 .....

¶104

Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for petitioners.
Shri B.A. Darak, Advocate for respondents.

¶105

 .....

¶106

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
 A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶107

DATE: 23.06.2014

¶108

ORDER :

¶109

1]The State has assailed the order passed by the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original
Applications filed by the present respondents.
2]Learned AGP for the petitioners submits that the

¶110

respondents were retrenched. They were initially
appointed on daily wages. Though they were brought on
CRT in the year 1983 after their retrenchment in the year

¶111

1988, they could not have been shown to be on CRT in the

¶112

year 1983-84. As such when they were again reinstated in

¶113

the year 1993, they were shown to be on CRT on 30.9.1993.
According to the learned AGP, no error is committed by
issuance of the Government resolutions dated 24.8.2011
and 14.9.2011.

¶114

WP 4585/13 & others

¶115

- 6 -

¶116

3]Learned counsel for the respondents submits that
about 15 persons had filed complaints and 14 out of them
have retired and one is dead. The learned counsel
submits that the respondents were initially appointed in
the year 1978-79 and in the year 1983-84 they were
brought on CRT. They were shown to have been retrenched
on 29.9.1988 and on the next day, they were shown to have
been re-employed and subsequently are shown to have been
brought on CRT in 1993, which is illegal. The Tribunal
has rightly considered the said aspect.

¶117

4]We have gone through the order passed by the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The fact that the
petitioners were appointed in the year 1978-79 and
brought on the CRT in the year 1983-84, is a matter of
record. The respondents were technically retrenched for
one day and were subsequently again shown to have been
re-employed. Considering 30.9.1988 as the date of fresh
employment, the respondents were sought to be brought on
CRT on 30.9.1993. When the petitioners were appointed in

¶118

the year 1978-79 and were already brought on CRT in the
year 1983-84 and again retrenched and rein-stated within
a span of one day, there was no way, the petitioners

¶119

WP 4585/13 & others

¶120

- 7 -

¶121

could have treated to be appointed on 30.9.1988 as a
fresh employment and thereby set at naught the services
rendered from the year 1978-79. The Tribunal has rightly
considered the said aspect and had afforded time to the
petitioners to withdraw the Government resolutions dated
24.8.2011 and 14.9.2011. The learned AGP states that the

¶122

same has not yet been withdrawn. The learned AGP further
submits that some time may be granted for taking steps to
comply paragraph no.7 of the order with regard to
withdrawal of the Government resolutions dated 24.8.2011
and 14.9.2011.

¶123

5]The writ petitions are dismissed with aforesaid
observations. However, the respondent – State shall take
steps to comply the order regarding withdrawal of
Government resolutions dated 24.8.2011 and 14.9.2011
expeditiously and preferably within six months from
today. No order as to costs.

¶124

ndk/ c2361436.doc

The State of Mah and Ors. v. Shaikh Hanif Shaikh Salim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Mah and Ors. v. Shaikh Hanif Shaikh Salim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushna Jagjivan Singh and Another Vs Om Rameshchandra Sharma and Others

Bibishan Sarjerao Sanap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vithal Uttam Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Survarnamala Devanand More Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dyandeo Namdeo Mungase Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Ramesh Madhav Kanole Vs the State of Mah and Ors.