Partly allowed

Bhikaji Bhaurao Thorat v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC22 Feb 2018WP/1591/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions sought service benefits for muster assistants whose Industrial Court complaints for unfair labour practices were allowed years ago but permanency was counted only after a 2004 absorption scheme. The Court directed treating them as permanent from the date of the 1988 complaints for pension purposes.

What did the court decide?

Directing State to treat petitioners as permanent employees from the date of filing ULP complaints till superannuation for pensionary benefits.

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

¶1

wp1240.18+

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1240 OF 2018

¶6

Govind s/o Abaji Borude,

¶7

Age-65 years, Occu:Nil,

¶8

Residing at Amalner, Post-Karajgaon,
Tq-Newasa, Dist-Ahmednagar.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

 VERSUS

¶11

1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary,

¶12

Public Works Department Maharashtra State,

¶13

Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032,

¶14

2) The Executive Engineer,

¶15

Public Works Division, Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar,

¶16

3) The Sub Divisional Engineer, Minor Irrigation (EGS) Sub Division, Kopargaon, Dist-Ahmednagar,

¶17

4) The Collector, Ahmednagar, Dist-Ahmednagar.

¶18

5) The Zilla Parishad, Nashik, Through Chief Executive Officer.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

...

¶21

 Mr.Suresh P. Pandav Advocate with Mr.A.N.
 Walujkar Advocate for Petitioner.
 Mr.A.B. Girase Government Pleader for
 Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶22

...

¶23

wp1240.18+

¶24

¶25

 WITH

¶26

 WRIT PETITION NO.1591 OF 2018

¶27

Bhikaji s/o Bhaurao Thorat,
Age-62 years, Occu:Retired,
Resident of Gondegaon, Tq-Shrirampur,
Dist-Ahmednagar.

¶28

...PETITIONER

¶29

 VERSUS

¶30

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

¶31

2) The Executive Engineer, Public Works Division, Sangamner, Tq-Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar,

¶32

3) The Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Works Sub Division, Shrirampur, Dist-Ahmednagar,

¶33

4) The Collector, Ahmednagar, Dist-Ahmednagar,

¶34

5) The Tahsildar, Shevgaon, Tq-Shevgaon, Dist-Ahmednagar.

¶35

...RESPONDENTS

¶36

...

¶37

 Mr.Suresh P. Pandav Advocate with Mr.A.N.
 Walujkar Advocate for Petitioner.
 Mr.A.B. Girase Government Pleader for
 Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

¶38

...

¶39

wp1240.18+

¶40

¶41

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

¶42

DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 14TH FEBRUARY, 2018

¶43

 DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 22ND FEBRUARY, 2018

¶44

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

¶45

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally with the consent of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties.

¶46

2.Initially the Petitioners were appointed

¶47

as Muster Assistants in Minor Irrigation Division,
Ahmednagar and Public Works Division, Sangamner,
respectively. The Petitioners worked as muster
assistants for considerable period but their
services were not made permanent and therefore,

¶48

the Petitioners filed Complaint (ULP) No.548 of
1988 and 561 of 1988 before the Industrial Court,
Ahmednagar alleging commission of unfair labour
practices covered by Item No. 9 of Schedule IV of

¶49

wp1240.18+

¶50

¶51

the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
(for short "MRTU & PULP Act, 1971). The said
complaints were allowed by the Industrial Court,
Ahmednagar by Judgment and Order dated 29th
December, 1994. The learned Member, Industrial
Court, Ahmednagar directed that status and
privileges of permanency with consequential
benefits from the date of filing of the complaints
be conferred on the Petitioners. The said order
passed by the Industrial Court was not challenged
by the Respondents.

¶52

3.In the meantime the Government of
Maharashtra prepared scheme of absorption of
muster assistants into regular service to be
governed by the Government Resolution dated 1st
December, 1995 as modified from time to time. In
view of the said scheme, the Petitioners were

¶53

absorbed as muster assistants and they were given
the pay scale. Though the Petitioners became

¶54

wp1240.18+

¶55

¶56

permanent employees as Muster Assistants from 1988
as per the order of the Industrial Court, the
entry in their service record as a permanent
employee was taken from the date of his absorption
i.e. from 1st December, 2004.

¶57

4.It is contended that in similar set of
facts and circumstances wherein the complaints
were allowed by the Labour Court, the Revision was
preferred before the Industrial Court and the said
orders of both the Courts below were challenged
before the High Court by filing Writ Petition
No.4227 of 1988, and this Court after hearing the
parties, rejected the said Petition vide order
dated 25th August, 1988. The Respondents in the
said Writ Petition challenged the said orders
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special
Leave Petition No.5181 and others of 1988. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the

¶58

said Special Leave Petitions vide its order dated
22nd January, 1990. It is further contended that

¶59

wp1240.18+

¶60

¶61

the similarly situated employees like the
Petitioners have been conferred with the benefits
of permanency and other benefits with effect from
1st October, 1988 and the Petitioners are not
conferred with the status of permanency. Therefore
the action on the part of the Respondents is
illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative
of principles of natural justice. Hence these
Petitions.

¶62

5.Learned counsel appearing for the

¶63

Petitioners 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
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

¶64

they have filed complaints before the Industrial

¶65

Court, Ahmednagar. In the said complaints

¶66

wp1240.18+

¶67

¶68

directions were given by the Industrial Court to

¶69

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,

¶70

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

¶71

counsel further submits that the same relief is
being claimed by the Petitioners in the present
Writ Petitions.

¶72

6.Learned Government Pleader submits that

¶73

the Government of Maharashtra vide G.R. dated 1st

¶74

December, 1995 has framed the scheme to absorb

¶75

muster assistants in Government service. In the
said G.R., muster assistants who were working as

¶76

on 31st May, 1993 were to be included in the
seniority list for their further absorption in the

¶77

wp1240.18+

¶78

¶79

Government service. According to the above said

¶80

G.R., the services of the Petitioners were

¶81

absorbed. Hence principle of waiver will apply in
these cases as the Petitioners waived their right

¶82

for counting of earlier service while absorbing in
the Government service therefore the prayer made
by the Petitioners for counting service as muster

¶83

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

¶84

substance in the contentions raised by the
Petitioners. Hence it is prayed that the Writ
Petitions may be rejected.

¶85

7.We have carefully considered the

¶86

submissions of the learned counsel appearing for

¶87

the Petitioners and learned Government Pleader

¶88

appearing for the State. With their able
assistance, we have perused the grounds taken in

¶89

the Petition the annexures thereto, and the

¶90

Judgments delivered by this Court, copies of which
are placed on record.

¶91

wp1240.18+

¶92

¶93

8.In the similar fact situation, the

¶94

Division Bench of this Court (CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &
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:

¶95

"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
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.

¶96

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.

¶97

3. If such representation is made, same
shall be decided as expeditiously as

¶98

wp1240.18+

¶99

¶100

possible and preferably within a period of
four months from the date on which the
representations are made.

¶101

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.

¶102

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

¶103

9.Taking the same view and for the same
reasons as stated in the Judgment and order dated

¶104

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

¶105

O R D E R

¶106

I) In view of the Judgment and Order
dated 29th December, 1994 passed by the

¶107

learned Industrial Court, Ahmednagar,

¶108

wp1240.18+

¶109

¶110

for the purpose of considering the
grant of pensionary benefits, the
Petitioners shall be treated as
Permanent Employee with effect from the
date of their filing complaints, till
the date of superannuation.

¶111

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

¶112

III) If such representation is made,

¶113

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.

¶114

IV) We make it clear that, apart from

¶115

issuing directions regarding the date

¶116

wp1240.18+

¶117

¶118

of permanent employment of the
respective Petitioners, we have not

¶119

examined the case of the Petitioners as
regards the eligibility of pensionary
benefits.

¶120

V) Rule is made partly absolute on

¶121

above terms with no order as to costs.

¶122

IV) The Writ Petitions stand disposed
of, accordingly.

¶123

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

¶124

asb/FEB18

Bhikaji Bhaurao Thorat v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhikaji Bhaurao 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

Bhausaheb Sukhdeo Thorat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others