Dismissed

Mahesh Laxman Patil v. the North Maharashtra University Jalgaon through Its Registrar

Bombay HC21 Dec 2016WP/8094/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the dismissal of his regularization claim under Standing Order 4(C). The court held that regularization cannot be directed without proof of a vacant post, distinguishing earlier precedents, and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

Rule discharged; Writ Petition dismissed as devoid of merit.

Mahesh Laxman Patil Vs the North Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.8094 OF 2016

¶4

Mahesh Laxman Patil, Age-43 years, Occu-Service, R/o Morane Pr.Laling, Tal. And Dist. Dhule – PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon, Dist.Jalgaon, Through its Registrar – RESPONDENT

¶7

Mr.B.R.Waramaa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.B.Girase, Government Pleader for the State.

¶8

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) DATE : 21/12/2016

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶10

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

¶11

The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 17/03/2016

¶12

by which Complaint (ULP) No.10/2014 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Industrial Court, Jalgaon.

¶13

I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for

¶14

the respective sides for quite some time.

¶15

khs/DEC.2016/8094-d

¶16

¶17

The petitioner who was working as a Peon, had approached the Industrial Court by filing Complaint (ULP) No.10/2014 seeking regularization from 31/08/1995. He was granted regularization w.e.f. 02/02/2002 on a post of Peon-cum-Hamal which was vacant. The complaint was based on Standing Order 4(C) and it was therefore contended that the petitioner deserves regularization in service from 31/08/1995 when he completed one calendar year of service.

¶18

The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint for two reasons. Firstly, that the petitioner had preferred Complaint (ULP) No.2394/1999 seeking the same relief of regularization under Standing Order 4(C) from the date he had completed 240 days in continuous employment in a calendar year and the said complaint was withdrawn by him subsequently. It appears that since the petitioner was granted regularization on 02/02/2002, the complaint was withdrawn.

¶19

Secondly, the Industrial Court noticed that the petitioner failed to place on record evidence which would indicate that there were permanent vacant posts available prior to 02/02/2002 or in 1995.

¶20

In so far as the claim for regularization upon completion of one calendar year of service under Standing Order 4(C) is concerned, this

¶21

khs/DEC.2016/8094-d

¶22

¶23

Court, in the matter of Mukhyadhikari, Nagar Parishad, Tuljapur Vs.Vishal Vijay Amrutrao and others, [2015(5) Mh.L.J.75] and in the matter of Municipal Council, Tuljapur Vs. Baban Hussain Dhale in WP No.1843/2015 and connected matters decided on 26/02/2015, has concluded that Industrial Court cannot direct regularization from a particular date unless a permanent vacant post is proved to be available and the claimant is legally entitled to be absorbed on the said post. The learned Division Bench of this Court, in the matter of Municipal Council, Tirora Vs. Tulsidas Baliram Bindhade [2016(6) Mh.L.J.867], has concluded that the State instrumentalities and establishments of the Governments, unless the posts are vacant, cannot be directed to absorb employees under Standing Order 4(C) which would have no applicability. As such, the claim of the petitioner on the basis of Standing Order 4(C) was unsustainable and the same has been rightly rejected by the Industrial Court.

¶24

The petitioner has placed on record information received by him on 28/06/2016 to contend that there are 72 posts of PeonHamal with the respondent/University. The documents placed before the Court though indicate that there are 72 such posts, it does not indicate that there were vacant posts available in 1995.

¶25

khs/DEC.2016/8094-d

¶26

¶27

In the light of the above, it is obvious that Standing Order 4(C) cannot be pressed into service in such matters. The petitioner has already been granted regularization from 02/02/2002 and his earlier Complaint No.2394/1999 seeking same relief of regularization from 31/08/1995 having been unconditionally withdrawn, I do not find that the Industrial Court has committed any error in dismissing his second Complaint No.10/2014.

¶28

As such, this petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

¶29

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶30

khs/DEC.2016/8094-d

Mahesh Laxman Patil v. the North Maharashtra University Jalgaon through Its Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Laxman Patil v. the North Maharashtra University Jalgaon through Its Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ahmednagar Muncipal Council. Vs Shaikh Manzur Ahmed Shamshoddin.

Baburao Dondiram Singapure and Anr. Vs the Education Officer Z P Latur and Ors.

Municipal Council Chopda Dist Jalgaon through Its Chief Officer Vs Ramesh Pundlik Baviskar

Ashok Pandurang Phalke. Vs Dy.Registrar Director of Social Forestry and Ors.

K Sera Sera Digital Cinema Private Ltd. through Ms Tanu Singh Vs Sahadev Sudhakar Andhale

Maroti Shankar Waghmare Vs Shivaji Pawar and Another