Disposed

Shri Prashant Jagannath Meshram and Others v. the Director of Maharashtra Prathmik Shikshan Parishad (Mpsp) Mumbai and Another

Bombay HC8 Jun 2018WP/3824/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition regarding seniority disputes of temporary employees under the Sarva Shikshan Abhiyan project. It held that an internal appeal remedy exists and granted liberty to raise seniority challenges before the competent authority within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with liberty to raise seniority dispute before the competent authority within four weeks; cost not awarded.

Shri Prashant Jagannath Meshram and Others Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 wp3824.2016+

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3824/2016 AND

¶4

CAW NO. 06/2017

¶5

Shri Prashant Jagannath Meshram & ors.

¶6

..VS..

¶7

The Director of Maharashtra Prathmik Shikshan Parishad & ors.

¶8

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶10

Court's or Judge's orders

¶11

¶12

Shri P.S. Sahare, Advocate for the petitioner(s) Ms. Aarti Singh, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 Shri P.A. Jibhkate, Advocate for the intervenor

¶13

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND Z.A.HAQ, JJ. DATED : 08/06/2018

¶14

1] Heard respective counsel for the parties.

¶15

2] Submission is, in Zilla Parishad, Wardha, there are more senior employees who have completed longer stay and therefore they should have been picked up and sent to Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. During arguments, learned advocate for petitioners also submitted that even if principle of last come first go is to be invoked, seniority list itself is not in dispute.

¶16

3] We have perused writ petition.

¶17

4] Under the provisions of Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, remedy of appeal in such matter is provided. We were inclined to dispose of writ petition with liberty to petitioners to avail that remedy.

¶18

2 wp3824.2016+

¶19

5] However, respective advocates for respondents invited our attention to the fact that petitioners have been employed under the project “Sarva Shikshan Abhiyan” on contract basis temporarily for the period of six months. In this situation, their right to post itself is in dispute.

¶20

6] Petitioners have been shifted to Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon where work is available and are working at that place. As the right to post does not exists, the challenge to seniority itself may not be very relevant.

¶21

6] However, if petitioners feel that even in cadre on project, in seniority list of temporary workers there is some dispute, we permit them to raise it before the authority mentioned supra as per law.

¶22

7] If such dispute is raised within four weeks from today, the authority shall consider independently on its own merits within next three months.

¶23

8] With this observation, liberty and keeping all rival contentions open, we dispose of present writ petition.

¶24

9] Civil application is therefore disposed of. No costs.

¶25

JUDGE JUDGE

¶26

Ansari

Shri Prashant Jagannath Meshram and Others v. the Director of Maharashtra Prathmik Shikshan Parishad (Mpsp) Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Prashant Jagannath Meshram and Others v. the Director of Maharashtra Prathmik Shikshan Parishad (Mpsp) Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kazi Akiloddins/O Sujaoddin and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra ,through the Collector,Akola and 3 Others

The Court on Its Own Motion Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and 2 Others

The Court on Its Own Motion Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and 2 Others

Rekha Chaturji Chandane Vs Dinesh Waghmare, Secretary, Department of Social Justice, Mumbai and Others

Santosh Nanaji Mandhare Vs State of Maharahtra Thr. Secretary Mumbai and Others

Amruta Bhalchandra Jiwane W/O Dhiraj Vitthalrao Majgawli Vs the State of Mah., Thr. Its Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Department and 2