Court directed the State to decide as expeditiously as possible on the proposal from Zilla Parishad to apply Kalelkar Settlement to its employees instead of Maruf Agreement.
Respondent No. 1 directed to decide proposal dated 1.6.2015 within 12 weeks and communicate the decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1695.16wp+
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
_____________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders |
______________________________________________________ WRIT PETITION NO.1695 OF 2016
SHRIRAM DEVRAO DHERE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioners:Mr.Wagh Pradip K.
AGP for Respondents/State: Mr.Mr.S.G.
Karlekar.
Advocate for Respondents: Mr.Aghav Avinash
D for R.No.3; Mr.Suryawanshi Prashant D.
for R.No.2.
&
WRIT PETITION NO. 1860 OF 2016
BAJIRANG ABASAHEB TAPSE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioners:Mr.Wagh Pradip K.
AGP for Respondents 1 & 2:Mr.S.B.Yawalkar.
Advocate for Respondent 3: Mr.Aaghav
Avinash D.
...
CORAM:S.S.SHINDE & SANGITRAO S.PATIL, JJ.
Dated: APRIL 01, 2016
ORAL ORDER:
1)Heard the learned Counsel for the
1695.16wp+
2
parties. Perused the pleadings in the
petition and the documents placed on
record.
2)The learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that, in case of the
employees in the employment of Zilla
Parishad, Osmanabad and Latur, though
'Maruf agreement' was made applicable,
governing their service conditions,
subsequently,applicationofsaid
agreement was cancelled and 'Kalelkar
Settlement' is made applicable governing
their service conditions. The statement
made by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners is also confirmed by
learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondent No.3/Zilla Parishad. He
submits that, already proposal is
forwarded by the Respondent No.3 to
Respondent No.1, requesting for applying
'Kalelkar Settlement' instead of 'Maruf
Agreement' to the employees of the
Respondent No.3. There is innocuous
prayer in the petition inasmuch as,
direction is sought to Respondent No.1 to
decide the proposal dated 1.6.2015
submitted by Respondent No.3 in respect of
applicability of the provisions of
'Kalelkar Settlement' to the petitioners
1695.16wp+
3
and in case of other employees working
under Zilla Parishad, Beed, like same is
made applicable to the employees working
under Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad and
Latur.
3)In that view of the matter, we direct
Respondent No.1-State to take a decision
on the said proposal dated 1.6.2015
forwarded by Respondent no.3, if
necessary, after hearing the parties, as
expeditiously as possible, and preferably
within a period of twelve (12) weeks from
today and communicate the said decision to
the petitioners and Respondent No.3. We
make it clear that we have not expressed
any opinion on merits, and it is left to
Respondent No.1 to take appropriate
decision.
4)The Writ Petitions are disposed of on
above terms.
.Parties to act upon authenticated
copy of this order.
(SANGITRAO S.PATIL, J)(S.S. SHINDE, J)
kadam/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can direct the State to decide on the proposal regarding applicability of Kalelkar Settlement to Zilla Parishad employees working under Maruf Agreement.
Whether the writ petition should be allowed to ensure expeditious decision on the service conditions of the petitioners.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shriram Devrao Dhere
The State of Maharashtra
Zilla Parishad Osmanabad
Zilla Parishad Latur
Zilla Parishad Beed
S.S. Shinde
Sangitrao S. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court