Partly allowed

Sachin S.Malvankar v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Dec 2018WP/418/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of a writ petition by the Customs Sepoy Malvankar challenging the rejection of his regularization. Finding that 55 Sepoys, including the petitioner, were regularized with effect from October 2007, the Court held that vacancies existed and declared the regularization order valid. The petition was partly allowed, and the regularization order was made to continue ope

What did the court decide?

The order of regularization dated 14th June 2013 is treated as legal and valid and shall continue to operate; the petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sachin S.Malvankar Vs Union of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

SKN

¶2

1/3 418.03-wp.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIGINAL SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 418 OF 2003

¶5

Shri Sachin Sadashiv Malvankar. … Petitioner. V/s. Union of India and others. … Respondents.

¶6

Mr.A.I.Bhatkar for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr.Y.S.Bhate with Mr.Pawan Patil for the respondents.

¶8

CORAM : A.S.OKA & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 13^th December 2018.

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A.S.Oka, J.)

¶10

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner was appointed as a Sepoy in the Customs Department. It is claimed that he joined his duty on 9^th August 2000 and was continued in the said post from time to time. His services were sought to be terminated with effect from 7^th August 2001 and that is why the petitioner and others approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short “Tribunal”) by filing Original Application wherein a prayer was made for regularization. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order dated 17^th January 2003 rejected the said Original Application. The Original Application was rejected by accepting the contention of the respondents that there

¶11

SKN 2/3 418.03-wp.doc

¶12

were no vacancies available for regularizing the employment of the petitioner and others and that there was a ban imposed by the Ministry of Finance on direct recruitment. The Tribunal, therefore, observed that regularization cannot be granted and the order of termination was justified. We may note that in this petition, on 30^th January 2003, this Court granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer of prayer clause (d) by which the respondents were directed to continue the employment of the petitioner as a Sepoy. While issuing rule vide order dated 8^th June 2003, the said ad-interim relief was continued as interim relief.

¶13

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner tendered across the bar office order dated 14^th June 2013 bearing No.140/2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. By the said order, the employment of 55 Sepoys mentioned therein was regularized in the payscale mentioned in the said order with effect from 24^th October 2007. The name of the petitioner appears at serial No.55. Though the regularization was notionally granted with effect from 24^th October 2007, it is observed that those persons will not be entitled to arrears of pay on account of notional regularization.

¶14

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instruction, states that the petitioner is happy with the order dated 14^th June 2013 and he has no subsisting grievance except for the fact that the said order records that the regularization of the petitioner is subject to outcome of the present petition.

¶15

SKN 3/3 418.03-wp.doc

¶16

As noted earlier, by the impugned judgment and order, the prayer for regularization of the employment of the petitioner was rejected on the ground there were no vacancies at the relevant time. Now the fact that with a effect from 24^th October 2007, the employment of 55 Sepoys has been regularized shows that on 24^th October 2007, there were vacancies to accommodate the petitioner.

¶17

In the circumstances, the order dated 14^th June 2013 granting notional regularization to the petitioner with effect from 14^th October 2007 will have to be treated as legal and valid and will continue to operate even after the disposal of the petition. With the above direction, petition is disposed of. Rule is partly made absolute accordingly.

¶18

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.) (A.S.OKA, J.)

Sachin S.Malvankar v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin S.Malvankar v. Union of India and Ors.

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

Eknath Sadashiv Kandpile and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kamata Prasad Tiwari Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors.

Shri. Dhulaji Shrimant Kharat Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Irrigation Dept. and Ors.

Alka M. Joshi Vs Union of India and Anr.

Smt. Anita Sunil Khairaliya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri Sunil Shankar Jakkal Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.