Dismissed

Suresh S/O Punaji Bagde and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Labour and Industrial Dept. Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC15 Jan 2021WP/5290/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Writ Petition filed by six retired security guards seeking relief based on their three-year service despite not meeting qualification criteria prescribed in a Government Resolution. The High Court rejected the plea, holding that no indulgence could be granted as the Respondent lacked power to relax conditions and sympathy would deprive eligible candidates of employment.

What the court decided

AI extract

Suresh S/O Punaji Bagde and Others Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

wp 5290.2019.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

Writ Petition No. 5290/2019

¶5

Suresh S/o Punaji Bagde and ors.

¶6

…Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and ors.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Shri A.R. Ingole, Advocate for the Petitioners Shri N.S. Rao, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - State Shri M.R. Pillai, Advocate for Respondent No. 4

¶11

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 15 JANUARY 2021

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶15

The Petitioners, six in number were working as Security Guards on the establishment of the Respondent No. 2 through Respondent No. 3-Agency by the Respondent No. 4-Security Guards Board.

¶16

The Petitioners worked from the year 2016 to 2019, as orally informed to us by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, as we find no pleading to that effect in the Petition. The only document which gives details of the Petitioners is at Annexure “A”. As orally informed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the Petitioners’ services are stated to have been discontinued some time in the year 2019. Again, as orally

¶17

SMGate

¶18

2 wp 5290.2019.odt

¶19

informed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners some of the Petitioners were disqualified on the ground that they had not passed Eighth Standard Examination and some were disqualified on the ground that they did not have the requisite height.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that though it is correct that the appointments were after the Government Resolution dated 02 March 2009 prescribing qualifications for Security Guards of being of specific height and education, which the Petitioners do not posses, a sympathetic view be taken since the Petitioners have worked for a period of three years. The fact that the Petitioners do not qualify is not disputed.

¶21

Affidavit-in-reply is filed by Respondent No. 4 stating that under the said Government Resolution, it does not have any power of relaxation of the conditions.

¶22

Without being qualified, the Petitioners were permitted to work and earn salary for three years. No further indulgence can be granted to the Petitioners. Exercise of sympathy will be misplaced as it would deprive those who were otherwise eligible and yet not gainfully employed.

¶23

The Writ Petition is rejected.

¶24

[ANIL S. KILOR, J.] [NITIN JAMDAR, J.]

¶25

SMGate

Suresh S/O Punaji Bagde and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Labour and Industrial Dept. Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Suresh S/O Punaji Bagde and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Labour and Industrial Dept. Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay S/O. Pandurang Ghodmare Vs the Election Commission of India, Nirvanchan Sadan, New Delhi and Others

Pradip Murlidhar Rathod Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. State Election Commissioner, Maharashtra and Another

Venutai W/O Deepak Bhandekar Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Deptt., Mumbai and Others

Ku. Madhuri Kunjilal Ghodeswar Vs Nav-Prabhat Shikshan Sanstha, through Its Secretary /President, Bhandara and Otehrs

Vijaykumar Jain S/O Ramnarayan Jain and 2 Others Vs the Municipal Corporation of the City of Nagpur and 2 Others

Prabhakar S/O Umaji Chimurkar Vs Bank of India Thr. Its Chairman and M.D. and 3 Ors.