Disposed

Shivaji Bappasaheb Kharat and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC18 Apr 2016WP/1861/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad disposed of the writ petition by directing the State to expeditiously decide and communicate a proposal submitted by the Zilla Parishad regarding the service conditions of canal kamaghars, specifically the applicability of the 'Kalelkar Settlement' over the 'Maruf Agreement', within twelve weeks. The court explicitly stated it expressed no opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.1 (State) to decide and communicate the proposal dated 1-6-2015 forwarded by respondent no.3 within twelve weeks.

Shivaji Bappasaheb Kharat and Others Vs the… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

(1)W.P. No. 1861 of 2016

¶2

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

¶3

Writ Petition No. 1861 of 2016

¶4

District : Beed

¶5

1.Shivaji s/o. Bappasaheb Kharat,
Age : 50 years,
Occupation : Service as
Canal Kamagar,
R/o. Bangali Pimpla,
Taluka : Georai,
District : Beed.

¶6

2.Sakharam s/o. Sandubhai Shelke,
Age : 50 years,
Occupation : Service as
Canal Kamagar,
R/o. Swaraj Nagar,
Barshi Road, Beed,
Taluka & District : Beed.

¶7

3.Vishnu s/o. Shivbapu Bhoge,
Age : 58 years,
Occupation : Service as
Canal Kamagar,
R/o. Dhekan Moha,
Taluka & District : Beed. .. Petitioners.

¶8

versus

¶9

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶10

2. The Divisional Commissioner, Divisional Commissioner Office, Aurangabad.

¶11

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed. .. Respondents.

¶12

(2)W.P. No. 1861 of 2016

¶13

............

¶14

Mr. Pradip K. Wagh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶15

Mr. B.V. Virdhe, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶16

Mr. A.D. Aghav, Advocate, for respondent no.3.

¶17

............

¶18

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
 SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

¶19

DATE : 18TH APRIL 2016

¶20

COURT'S ORDER (Per S.S. Shinde, J.) :

¶21

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
Perused the pleadings in the petition and the
documents placed on record.

¶22

2.The learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners submit 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,
application of said agreement was cancelled and
'Kalelkar Settlement' is made applicable governing
their service conditions.

¶23

(3)W.P. No. 1861 of 2016

¶24

3.The statement made by the learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioners is also confirmed by
the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3 -
Zilla Parishad. He submits that already proposal is
forwarded by respondent no.3 to respondent no.1,
requesting for applying 'Kalelkar Settlement' instead
of 'Maruf Agreement' to the employees of the
respondent no.3.

¶25

4.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 Agreement' to the petitioners
who are working under "Maaruf Agreement".

¶26

5.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.

¶27

6.With the above directions, the Writ Petition
is disposed of.

¶28

(4)W.P. No. 1861 of 2016

¶29

7.Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of
this order.

¶30

(SANGITRAO S. PATIL) (S.S. SHINDE)

¶31

 JUDGE JUDGE

¶32

 puranik / WP1861.16

Shivaji Bappasaheb Kharat and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaji Bappasaheb Kharat and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Sushilkumar Lalasaheb Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Akbar Khan Mustafa Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Waghur Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Sakegaon Dist Jalgaon Thr Its Chairman and Another Vs Indira Gandhi Madhyamik Vidyalaya Sakegaon Dist Jalgaon Thr Its Head Master and Others

Vaishali Dharamraj Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prabhawati Devidas Salve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shobha Rameshchandra Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others