Dismissed

Gurunath Balu Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC4 Dec 2017WP/11476/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging the dismissal of petitions for permanency and wages granted Gram Rojgar Sewak. The Court held that as per the State scheme of 2011, appointments are purely temporary and not permanent; thus, the request could not be accepted but is open for future requests conforming to the scheme.

What did the court decide?

Allowed that petitions could be made suitable requests in consonance with the scheme; dismissed claims for permanency and wages.

Gurunath Balu Jadhav Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

(Order) (1) W.P. No. 11458 of 2017

¶2

 & Group

¶3

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

¶4

Writ Petition No. 11458 of 2017

¶5

District : Nanded
Vitthal s/o. Bapurao Gutte... Petitioner.
versus
The State of Maharashtra
 & 06 others. .. Respondents.

¶6

...........

¶7

Mr. Sarang P. Joshi and Mr. Kishor U. Shirodkar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. S.B. Joshi, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01 to 03.

¶9

...........

¶10

With

¶11

Writ Petition No. 11460 of 2017

¶12

District : Nanded
Digamber s/o. Kishanrao Wadje.. Petitioner.

¶13

versus

¶14

The State of Maharashtra
 & 06 others. .. Respondents.

¶15

...........

¶16

Mr. Sarang P. Joshi and Mr. Kishor U. Shirodkar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶17

Mr. A.R. Kale, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01 to 03.

¶18

...........

¶19

(Order) (2) W.P. No. 11458 of 2017

¶20

 & Group

¶21

With

¶22

Writ Petition No. 11467 of 2017

¶23

District : Nanded
Narayan s/o. Baliram Navghare.. Petitioner.
versus
The State of Maharashtra
 & 06 others. .. Respondents.

¶24

...........

¶25

Mr. Sarang P. Joshi and Mr. Kishor U. Shirodkar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶26

Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01 to 03.

¶27

...........

¶28

With

¶29

Writ Petition No. 11469 of 2017

¶30

District : Nanded
Vijay s/o. Limbaji Rathod.. Petitioner.
versus
The State of Maharashtra
 & 06 others. .. Respondents.

¶31

...........

¶32

Mr. Sarang P. Joshi and Mr. Kishor U. Shirodkar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶33

Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, Addl. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01 to 03.

¶34

...........

¶35

(Order) (3) W.P. No. 11458 of 2017

¶36

 & Group

¶37

With

¶38

Writ Petition No. 11472 of 2017

¶39

District : Nanded
Ramdas s/o. Khanderao Gutte.. Petitioner.
versus
The State of Maharashtra
 & 06 others. .. Respondents.

¶40

...........

¶41

Mr. Sarang P. Joshi and Mr. Kishor U. Shirodkar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶42

Mr. S.B. Joshi, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01 to 03.

¶43

...........

¶44

With

¶45

Writ Petition No. 11476 of 2017

¶46

District : Nanded
Gurunath s/o. Balu Jadhav.. Petitioner.
versus
The State of Maharashtra
 & 06 others. .. Respondents.

¶47

...........

¶48

Mr. Sarang P. Joshi and Mr. Kishor U. Shirodkar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶49

Mr. A.R. Kale, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.01 to 03.

¶50

...........

¶51

(Order)

¶52

(4)W.P. No. 11458 of 2017

¶53

 & Group

¶54

CORAM : R.M. BORDE &

¶55

SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.

¶56

 DATE : 04TH DECEMBER 2017

¶57

ORAL ORDER :

¶58

01.Request made by petitioners in the
representation dated 22.08.2016 itself is contrary to
the scheme framed by the State Government in respect
of appointment and functions of Gram Rojgar Sewak.
Petitioners have tendered a request to the
authorities to consider them sligible for conferment
of permanency in employment and to pay monthly wages.

¶59

02.The scheme framed by the State Government
declared under the resolution dated 02.05.2011
stipulates appointment of Gram Rojgar Sewak on part
time basis. It is clearly recorded in the scheme
itself that payment to the Gram Rojgar Sewak would be
in tune with the responsibility conferred upon him.
It is however, provided that such Gram Rojgar Sewak
would neither be considered as the employee of the
State Government, Zilla Parishad or Panchayat Samiti
and the appointment would be purely on temporary
basis. They also cannot be considered to be the
employees of the concerned Village Panchayat.

¶60

03.Since the scheme itself does not stipulate
employment of the concerned Gram Rojgar Sewak on
permanent establishment, the request made by
petitioners in the representation dated 22.08.2016

¶61

(Order) (5) W.P. No. 11458 of 2017 & Group

¶62

cannot be directed to be considered favourably. It
would however, be open for the petitioners to make
suitable request in consonance with the scheme
formulated by the State Government.

¶63

04.Writ petitions accordingly stand disposed
of.

¶64

( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi ) ( R.M. Borde )
JUDGE JUDGE

¶65

...........

¶66

puranik / WP11458.17etc

Gurunath Balu Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurunath Balu Jadhav 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

Narayan Dattu Panchal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jijabai Ajinath Dhanawade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Atul Surendra Kapadiya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dinesh Shirish Saigunde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prabhakar Ambadasrao Dongre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Balaji Gade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others