This writ petition challenged a Tribunal decision awarding benefits to an ad-hoc employee. The High Court observed prior orders and apex court confirmations in similar fact scenarios upheld the Tribunal. Finding no merit, the petition was dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp4810.06
( 1 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4810 OF 2006
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS
VIJAY G BURANDE
Mr.V.S.Badakh, AGP for petitioner/State.
Mr.Milind Patil for Respondent
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :24.08.2018
P.C. :-
We have heard the learned AGP for the
petitioner. The learned AGP submits that the petitioners
were appointed on Ad-hoc basis and not entitled for the
increments and the leave benefits. The Tribunal failed
to consider the said aspect. The matter was referred to
the Larger Bench of the Tribunal.
2.The Tribunal has observed that a policy
decision has been taken by the Government under
Government Resolution dated 10.04.2003 to extend the
benefit of annual increments to the Lecturers working
with Government Medical College for more than 365 days
and the benefit of leave to all Ad-hoc employees working
with the State Government.
3.The order of this Court at the Principal seat
in Writ Petition 2158 of 2011 and the connected Writ
Petition is pointed out, wherein in similar set of facts
the order of Tribunal is upheld. The order of this Court
( 2 ) wp4810.06
in Writ Petition No.3484 of 2005 decided and in Writ
Petition No.372 of 2011 decided on 24.01.2011 was
carried in appeal before the Apex Court and the Apex
Court confirmed the order of this Court.
4.In light of the above there is no merit in the
petition. The writ petition is dismissed. Rule
discharged. No costs.
[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.]
ssp/August18/ wp4810.06
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to increments and leave benefits when appointed on an ad-hoc basis.
Whether the Tribunal erred in not considering the ad-hoc appointment aspect given prior precedents.
The State of Maharashtra
Vijay G Burande
S.V. GANGAPURWALA
S.M. GAVHANE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court