Dismissed

Chandu Rajaram Tompe and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Sept 2019WP/1398/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners claiming long-term daily wager status sought regularization. The High Court dismissed the petition relying on Umadevi's case, holding that a court cannot direct the executive to create a permanent post or frame a regularization scheme, leaving such decisions to the executive. Writ Petition No. 1398/2008 is dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No regularization or creation of permanent posts granted; Writ Petition dismissed.

Chandu Rajaram Tompe and Anr. Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

WP 1398/2008

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1398 OF 2008

¶6

Chandu S/o Rajaram Tompe Age 44 years, occ. service r/o Village Kasarali, Tq. Biloli Dist. Nanded.

¶7

Babu s/o Digamber Khandelote Age 49 years, occ. service, r/o as above.

¶8

Digamber s/o Dattatraya Rode Age 55 years, occ. service r/o as above.

¶9

Rukhminbai w/o Laxman Malve age 40 years, occ. service r/o as above. Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Agriculture, Horticulture department, Maharashtra State, Mumbai.

¶12

The Director of Horticulture Maharashtra State, Pune.

¶13

Dy. Director of Horticulture, Nande.

¶14

4 Taluka Nursery Officer,

¶15

WP 1398/2008

¶16

- 2 -

¶17

Head Quarter, Kasarali Tq. Biloli, Dist. Nanded.

¶18

Respondents

¶19

Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Patil, AGP for respondents no. 1 to 4.

¶20

CORAM: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, CJ & R.G. AVACHAT, J.

¶21

DATE: 23.09.2019

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( Per Pradeep Nandrajog, CJ)

¶23

1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. Vide impugned decision dated 28.11.2007, Writ Petition No. 976/1992 filed by the petitioners which has

¶24

been transferred before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and numbered as TA No. 51/2002, has been dismissed.

¶25

2] The Tribunal has noted a checkered history of the litigation fought by the petitioners herein. On different dates in the years 1984 and 1985, the petitioners claim to have been working as daily wagers. Their services been terminated by an oral order on 16.04.1992 they filed Writ Petition

¶26

No. 976/1992 in this Court which was registered as Transfer Application

¶27

No. 51/2002 before the Tribunal on it being transferred and it was disposed of on 01.03.2004 passing directions similar to the one issued in

¶28

WP 1398/2008

¶29

- 3 -

¶30

Writ Petitions No. 983/1992 and 815/2002 by a Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad, requiring a scheme of regularization to be framed keeping in view the fact that the petitioners had worked for long.

¶31

3] Said order was challenged by the State vide Writ Petition No. 6277/2004 which was disposed of by this Court remanding the matter to the Tribunal for being adjudicated afresh keeping in view the principles of

¶32

law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the decision reported as 2006 AIR (SCW) 1991 Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi & Ors.

¶33

4] At the remanded stage, the Tribunal has dismissed TA No. 51/2002 noting that the Court could not direct framing of any scheme of regularization.

¶34

5] A perusal of the decision in Umadevi's case shows that the law declared by the Court is that only the executive can create permanent post and a Court cannot direct creation of a permanent post.

¶35

WP 1398/2008

¶36

6] In view of law declared in Umadevi's case, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners wants to show 's case judgments prior to t he decision of the Supreme Court in Umadevi where Courts have been issuing directions to either regularise daily wagers who have worked long or frame scheme for regularization. All such decisions would be deemed to have been over-ruled in view of the law declared in Umadevi's case. Writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.

¶37

(R.G. AVACHAT, J.) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶38

dyb

Chandu Rajaram Tompe and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandu Rajaram Tompe and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Ratnadeep Sidramappa Utage Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Narayan Ramrao Upare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pandurang Kisan Khillare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gangadhar Maroti Ghule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prabhakar Rukhmanrao Kulthe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gangadhar Rangnath Mane Vs State of Maharashtra and Others