Partly allowed

Bhausaheb Sukhdeo Thorat v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC22 Feb 2018WP/1239/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition seeks direction to treat the petitioner as a permanent employee with seniority backdated to the date of his initial service complaint. The court relied on earlier precedents involving similar muster assistants.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be treated as permanent employee with effect from the date of filing the complaint for pensionary benefits; Rule made partly absolute.

Bhausaheb Sukhdeo Thorat Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wp1239.18

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.1239 OF 2018

¶6

Bhausaheb s/o Sukhdeo Thorat,
Age-58 years, Occu:Service,
Resident of Jawalke, Tq-Kopargaon,
Dist-Ahmednagar.

¶7

...PETITIONER
 VERSUS

¶8

1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Employment Guarantee Scheme, Public Works Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032,

¶9

2) The Superintending Engineer, Ahmednagar Irrigation Circle, Ahmednagar, Dist-Ahmednagar,

¶10

3) The Executive Engineer, Ahmednagar Irrigation Division, Ahmednagar, Dist-Ahmednagar,

¶11

4) The Sub Divisional Engineer, Minor Irrigation (EGS) Sub Division, Shrirampur, Dist-Ahmednagar,

¶12

5) The Collector, Ahmednagar, Dist-Ahmednagar,

¶13

6) The Tahsildar, Rahuri, Tq-Rahuri, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS

¶14

wp1239.18

¶15

¶16

...

¶17

 Mr.Suresh P. Pandav Advocate with Mr.A.N.
 Walujkar Advocate for Petitioner.
 Mr.P.K. Lakhotiya A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos. 1 to 6.

¶18

...

¶19

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
 S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.

¶20

DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 14TH FEBRUARY, 2018

¶21

 DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 22ND FEBRUARY, 2018

¶22

JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:

¶23

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and

¶24

heard finally with the consent of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties.

¶25

2.Initially the Petitioner was appointed as
MusterAssistantin Irrigation Division,

¶26

Ahmednagar. The services of the Petitioner came to
be terminated with effect from 1st August, 1985

¶27

vide order dated 31st July, 1985, passed by the
Sub Divisional Engineer, Shrirampur.The

¶28

wp1239.18

¶29

¶30

Petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No.44 of 1985
before the Labour Court, Ahmednagar praying that
his termination be declared as illegal and he be
reinstated in service with consequential benefits,

¶31

back wages and continuity of service. The Labour
Court, Ahmednagar, vide Judgment and order dated
31st August, 1987 set aside the termination order
dated 31st July, 1985 and directed Respondent No.4
to reinstate the Petitioner and give the benefit
of continuity of service along with back wages

¶32

from the date of termination till the date of
reinstatement. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and
order, the Respondents preferred Revision (ULP)
No.25 of 1987 before the Industrial Court,
Ahmednagar. Learned Member of the Industrial
Court, Ahmednagar vide its Judgment and order
dated 13th April, 1988 dismissed the said Revision

¶33

Petition. The Respondents challenged both the
orders passed by the learned Labour Court and
Industrial Court before this Court by filing Writ
Petition No.4227 of 1988, and this Court after

¶34

wp1239.18

¶35

¶36

hearing the parties, rejected the said Petition
vide order dated 25th August, 1988. The

¶37

Respondents challenged the said orders before the

¶38

Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave
Petition No.51181 of 1988 and other Petitions. The

¶39

Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the said Special
Leave Petitions vide its order dated 22nd January,
1990.

¶40

3.In the meantime the Government of

¶41

Maharashtra prepared scheme of absorption of
muster assistants into regular service to be

¶42

governed by the Government Resolution dated 1st
December, 1995 as modified from time to time. In
view of the said scheme, the Petitioner was
absorbed as Watchman in District Supply Office,
Ahmednagar. Though the Petitioners became

¶43

permanent employee as Muster Assistant from 1988
as per the order of the Labour Court and

¶44

Industrial Court, the entry in his service record
as a permanent employee was taken from the date of

¶45

wp1239.18

¶46

¶47

his absorption i.e. from 4th November, 2004.

¶48

4.It is contended that similarly situated
employees like the Petitioner filed Writ Petition
No.8359 of 2013 and 8391 of 2013 before this Court
and the Division Bench of this Court, by placing
reliance on the earlier Judgment and order passed
in Writ Petition Nos. 2946 of 1997 and 2236 of
1997, allowed the said Writ Petitions by Judgment
and Order dated 13th August, 2015 and directed to
grant benefits of permanency and pensionary
benefits from the date of filing of the complaint
by the Petitioners. It is contended that, the
action on the part of the Respondents in not
treating the Petitioner as permanent employee with
effect from 1st October, 1988, is illegal,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of
principles of natural justice. Hence this
Petition.

¶49

5.Learned counsel appearing for the

¶50

wp1239.18

¶51

¶52

Petitioner invites our attention to the Judgment
and order passed by the Division Bench of this
Court (CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL,
JJ.) on 7th April, 2016, in Writ Petition No.11183

¶53

of 2015 (Arun s/o Baburao More vs. State of
Maharashtra and others) and other two Writ
Petitions. It is submitted that the Petitioners
therein were also working as muster assistants and
they have filed complaints before the Industrial

¶54

Court, Ahmednagar. In the said complaints
directions were given by the Industrial Court to
the Respondents therein to confer status and
privileges of permanency and other consequential
benefits from the date of complaints filed in the
Industrial Court. In the said group of Petitions,

¶55

the Division Bench of this Court passed order
that, the Petitioners shall be treated as
permanent employees with effect from the date of
filing the respective complaints till the
respective dates of superannuation. Learned
counsel further submits that the same relief is

¶56

wp1239.18

¶57

¶58

being claimed by the Petitioners in the present
Writ Petitions.

¶59

6.Learned A.G.P. submits that the

¶60

Government of Maharashtra vide G.R. dated 1st
December, 1995 has framed the scheme to absorb

¶61

muster assistants in Government service. In the
said G.R., muster assistants who were working as
on 31st May, 1993 were to be included in the

¶62

seniority list for their further absorption in the
Government service. According to the above said

¶63

G.R., the services of the Petitioners were

¶64

absorbed. Hence principle of waiver will apply in
this case as the Petitioner waived his right for
counting of earlier service while absorbing in the
Government service therefore the prayer made by
the Petitioner for counting service as muster

¶65

assistant is not permissible under service
jurisprudence. It is submitted that there is no

¶66

substance in the contentions raised by the
Petitioner. Hence it is prayed that the Writ

¶67

wp1239.18

¶68

¶69

Petition may be rejected.

¶70

7.We have carefully considered the

¶71

submissions of the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioners and learned A.G.P. appearing for
the State. With their able assistance, we have
perused the grounds taken in the Petition the
annexures thereto, and the Judgments delivered by
this Court, copies of which are placed on record.

¶72

8.In the similar fact situation, the
Division Bench of this Court (CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &

¶73

SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.), in Writ Petition
No.11183 of 2015 and other two Writ Petitions,
referred above, on 7th April, 2016, has passed
following order:

¶74

"1. In view of the Judgment and order dated
29.12.1994 passed by the learned Industrial
Court, Ahmednagar, for the purpose of
considering the grant of pensionary
benefits, the petitioners shall be treated

¶75

wp1239.18

¶76

¶77

as permanent employees with effect from the
date of their complaints i.e. from the date
of filing of their respective ULP's till
the respective dates of superannuation.

¶78

2. In case of the Petitioners who were
already superannuated, it will be open for
them to make a representation to the
concerned Authorities for grant of
pensionary benefits.

¶79

3. If such representation is made, same
shall be decided as expeditiously as
possible and preferably within a period of
four months from the date on which the
representations are made.

¶80

4. We make it clear that, apart from
issuing directions regarding the date of
permanent employment of the respective
Petitioners, we have not examined the case
of the Petitioners as regards the
eligibility of pensionary benefits.

¶81

5. Rule is made partly absolute on above
terms with no order as to costs."

¶82

9.Taking the same view and for the same

¶83

reasons as stated in the Judgment and order dated

¶84

wp1239.18

¶85

¶86

7th April, 2016 passed in Writ Petition No.11183
of 2015 and other connected Writ Petitions,
referred above, we pass following order:

¶87

O R D E R

¶88

I) In view of the Judgment and Order
dated 31st August, 1987 passed by the

¶89

Labour Court, Ahmednagar, for the
purpose of considering the grant of
pensionary benefits, the Petitioner
shall be treated as Permanent Employee
with effect from the date of his
filing complaint, till the date of
superannuation.

¶90

II) In case the Petitioner is already
superannuated, it will be open for him
to make a representation to the
concerned Authorities for grant of
pensionary benefits.

¶91

wp1239.18

¶92

¶93

III) If such representation is made,

¶94

same shall be decided as expeditiously
as possible and preferably within a
period of four months from the date on
which the representation is made.

¶95

IV) We make it clear that, apart from
issuing directions regarding the date of
permanent employment of the Petitioner,
we have not examined the case of the
Petitioner as regards the eligibility of
pensionary benefits.

¶96

V) Rule is made partly absolute on above

¶97

terms with no order as to costs.

¶98

IV) The Writ Petition stands disposed

¶99

of, accordingly.

¶100

[S.M. GAVHANE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶101

asb/FEB18

Bhausaheb Sukhdeo Thorat v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhausaheb Sukhdeo Thorat 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Manikrao Sakhare and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balasaheb Ashruba Wanve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhaskar Eknath Dhere and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shashikant Gulchand Londhe and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Walmiki Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its Secretary and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhikaji Bhaurao Thorat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others