Allowed

Sahebrao Rama Badar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC9 Dec 2021WP/3604/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the writ petition directing the Zilla Parishad to consider appointing the petitioner as a Junior Assistant for the 10% quota, as his past service breaks were bridged by the employer, with a warning against future misconduct.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute directing Zilla Parishad to issue appointment order for Junior Assistant post in terms of prayer (B).

Sahebrao Rama Badar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

904-wp-3604-2020 judg.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

904 WRIT PETITION NO.3604 OF 2020

¶4

Sahebrao S/o. Rama Badar, Age – 44 years, Occu- Service, R/o. Kerhala, Tal – Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶7

The Block Development Ofcer, Panchayat Samiti, Sillod, Tal – Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶8

The Chief Executive Ofcer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶9

The Village Development Ofcer, Village Panchayat, Kerhala, Tal. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. ...Respondents

¶10

Mr. A.R. Devkate, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.R. Yadav – Lonikar, AGP for Respondent No.1/State. Mr. U.B. Bondar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. Mr. S.D. Hiwrekar, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

¶11

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & S.G. MEHARE, J.J.

¶12

DATED : 09^th DECEMBER, 2021

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J) :-

¶14

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard fnally by

¶15

the consent of the parties.

¶16

1/4

¶17

904-wp-3604-2020 judg.odt

¶18

The petitioner has put-forth prayer clause (B) as under:

¶19

“B. To direct the respondent No.3 to issue appointment order to the petitioner for the post of ‘Junior Assistant’ (Clerk) as per Counseling held on 24-12-2019 in the District Services Class III, by issuing writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other writ or any other order;”

¶20

There is no dispute that under a specifc scheme, 10% employees eligible for promotion in the District Services Class III with the Zilla Parishad, are eligible for being promoted in such service. The Gram Panchayat has to recommend the names of the eligible candidates and such 10% would include the senior most eligible candidate.

¶21

The petitioner has acquired qualifcation of B.A. and has passed MS-CIT. He claims to be profcient in typewriting in Marathi and English. He joined as a peon on 01.01.1993 with respondent no.4 Gram Panchayat. He alleges that he was illegally terminated from service on 28.11.2000 and was reinstated in service on 21.09.2001. He further claims that thereafter he was illegally terminated on 07.07.2011. He raised an industrial dispute under Section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 which was registered as Reference (IDA) No.09 of 2012 before the Labour Court at Aurangabad. By a compromise in mediation before the learned Industrial Court, Aurangabad, the Gram Panchayat agreed to reinstate the petitioner in service with efect from 07.07.2011, with continuity. However, the parties agreed that there shall be no payment of back-wages.

¶22

2/4

¶23

904-wp-3604-2020 judg.odt

¶24

The learned advocate representing the Zilla Parishad strenuously submits that the Zilla Parishad noticed on a complaint that the petitioner was not in employment for about 10 months in 2000-2001 on account of unauthorized absenteeism. He was also absent from duties from 07.07.2011 till his reinstatement in service with efect from 17.02.2016. A candidate who seeks the beneft of the District Services Class III out of the 10% quota for the Gram Panchayat, must put in the qualifying service of 10 years in continuous employment. He further submits that though the petitioner may fall in the quota of 10%, considering his absence from service, he would be ineligible as he has not completed 10 years in continuous employment preceding the date on which he could be considered for the position of Junior Assistant (Clerk). He has participated in the counseling session held on 24.12.2019 for his consideration for the District Services Class III quota.

¶25

We fnd from the fact situation as above that the Gram Panchayat has voluntarily reinstated the petitioner in service on 21.09.2001. He was granted continuity in service without back-wages thereby bridging the gap on account of his alleged unauthorized absenteeism. He was also out of service from 07.07.2011 till 16.03.2016. Shri Bondar, the learned advocate would be justifed in contending that this is a wide break in service. However, there was no reason for the Zilla Parishad to be involved in the reference case before the Labour Court as the Zilla Parishad is not the employer of the

¶26

3/4

¶27

904-wp-3604-2020 judg.odt

¶28

petitioner, even today, until prayer clause (B) is accepted. The Gram Panchayat, of it’s own volition, agreed to grant reinstatement with continuity in service to the petitioner.

¶29

Based on these facts, legally, the break in service has been bridged on both the occasions. The petitioner, therefore, will have to be considered as a candidate who is qualifed for consideration in terms of prayer clause (B) since his breaks in service have been condoned and bridged by the employer.

¶30

In view of the above, this petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B), save and except in the event of there being no legal impediment. However, we deem it appropriate to observe, considering the past record of the petitioner that in the event the petitioner is appointed by the Zilla Parishad and he indulges in act of unauthorized absenteeism with the Zilla Parishad after being inducted as a Junior Assistant (Clerk), the Zilla Parishad would initiate strict disciplinary action against him and there shall be no compromise if such a misconduct is noticed.

¶31

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶32

(S.G. MEHARE. J.)

¶33

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶34

Mujaheed//

¶35

4/4

Sahebrao Rama Badar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahebrao Rama Badar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalita Alais Kusum Manohar Kamble Vs the Divisional Officer Personner Branch through D C Bodke Apopa for Drm Pa and Others

Daivshila Vijay Pujari Vs Vijay Chandrakant Pujari

Santosh Balasaheb Kondare and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramesh Sonajirao Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Tayyab Bashir Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Murlidhar Rama Veer and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others