Dismissed

Mahavir Marotrao Bhumkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC20 Jan 2020WP/1154/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's claim that his pre-2009 Grampanchayat service should count for Zilla Parishad vacancies. The Court held that appointment began only in 2015, denying retrospective treatment of earlier service or dates, and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of, the petitioner's grievance was not considered, and no costs were awarded.

Mahavir Marotrao Bhumkar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

20wp1154-20

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

20 WRIT PETITION NO.1154 OF 2020

¶4

MAHAVIR MAROTRAO BHUMKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶5

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr Nagargoje Ankush N. AGP for Respondents: Mr S. B. Narwade Advocate for respondent Nos.3 & 4. Mr. S.B.Pulkundwar

¶6

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ. DATE : 20th January, 2020

¶7

ORDER :

¶8

We have heard Mr. Nagargoje, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶9

The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was working with the Grampanchayat since the year 1985. As per Circular dated 03.04.2005 10% reservation is provided to the persons employed with Grampanchayat for employment with Zilla Parishad. The petitioner was eligible to be employed with the Zilla Parishad in the year 2009. However, the respondents illegally did not consider the case of the petitioner and juniors to the petitioner were appointed. The petitioner filed writ petition before this Court. This Court under order dated 08.05.2015 in writ petition No. 5061 of 2014 directed the respondents to grant employment to the petitioner with the Zilla Parishad. The Court observed that it was an illegal act on the part of respondents in denying the appointment to the petitioner with Zilla Parishad.

¶10

Page 1 of 3

¶11

20wp1154-20

¶12

According to the learned counsel, petitioner’s services with the Grampanchayat are required to be considered for the purpose of pension or at least the services from 2009 be considered for further purposes.

¶13

Employment with Grampanchayat is not a pensionable service. The Grampanchayat has its own Rules. It is by virtue of executive instructions, a policy has been framed, wherein 10% posts in Zilla Parishad are reserved for persons employed with Grampanchayat. It appears that this Court came to the conclusion in the earlier petition bearing Writ Petition No. 5061/2014 that the petitioner ought to have been considered in the year 2009, however, the persons junior to the petitioner were considered for interview and the petitioner was not. This Court in the said judgment directed to appoint the petitioner on a vacant post and if no post is vacant, then on the first available vacant post.

¶14

The seniority, continuity and the date of appointment of the petitioner would be the date, the petitioner was issued with the appointment order and the petitioner joined the service. Retrospective effect to it cannot be given. Moreover, the petitioner was issued with the appointment order for the first time in the year 2015.

¶15

For all aforesaid reasons, the service rendered with the Grampanchayat will not be considered nor the date of appointment can be considered to be of the year 2009.

¶16

Page 2 of 3

¶17

20wp1154-20

¶18

The matter can be viewed from other pedestal. It is not that all employees in the Grampanchayat are to be appointed with the Zilla Parishad. Interviews are conducted and thereafter only the orders are issued. What would be the result of the interview would depend upon the decision of the selection committee at that time. The petitioner was considered for the first time in the year 2015.

¶19

In light of above, the the grievance put forth by the petitioner cannot be considered. Writ petition as such disposed of. No costs.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of birth of the petitioner is 7.05.1964 and the same ought to be considered. There is nothing on record to suggest that the respondents are considering some other date as date of birth of the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any such act, it is for the petitioner to agitate it independently.

¶21

(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶22

JPC

¶23

Page 3 of 3

Mahavir Marotrao Bhumkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahavir Marotrao Bhumkar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Bansidhar Sonwane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Mah, Thr. Collector, Latur Vs Vinayak Ganpatrao Machile

Meenabai Sureshlal Jaiswal through Her Son Vicky Sureshlal Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramesh Sahakari Mazoor Sanstha Magasvargiya Maryadit Parbhani through Its Chairman Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pratap Ajabsing Bamhnawat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others