Dismissed

Sanjay Vanilal Bhavsar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC20 Jun 2022WP/2472/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In identical writ petitions challenging the regularisation of over ten years of contractual service, the High Court dismissed the prayers for direct regularisation following Supreme Court precedents but directed the State and Union of India to collect data for a policy review.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Union of India and State Government to prepare data of long-serving contractual employees and take a policy decision by 31/03/2023.

Sanjay Vanilal Bhavsar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

2461.22wp etc

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

43 WRIT PETITION NO.2461 OF 2022

¶5

CHETAN PRAMOD GANGELE

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

AND

¶9

44 WRIT PETITION NO.2463 OF 2022

¶10

YOGESH NATTHURAM JAWARE

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶13

AND

¶14

45 WRIT PETITION NO.2464 OF 2022

¶15

VIJAY RAMDAS SHINDE

¶16

VERSUS

¶17

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶18

AND

¶19

46 WRIT PETITION NO.2465 OF 2022

¶20

VIPIN PRATAPSINGH PARDESHI

¶21

VERSUS

¶22

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶23

AND

¶24

47 WRIT PETITION NO.2472 OF 2022

¶25

SANJAY VANILAL BHAVSAR

¶26

VERSUS

¶27

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶28

AND

¶29

48 WRIT PETITION NO.2474 OF 2022

¶30

HARISHCHANDRA NAMDEO PAWAR VERSUS

¶31

2461.22wp etc

¶32

(2)

¶33

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶34

AND

¶35

49 WRIT PETITION NO.2475 OF 2022

¶36

RAJASHREE GOVINDA SONAWANE VERSUS

¶37

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶38

AND

¶39

50 WRIT PETITION NO.2484 OF 2022

¶40

PRAVIN DHANRAJ JAGTAP

¶41

VERSUS

¶42

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶43

AND

¶44

51 WRIT PETITION NO.2486 OF 2022

¶45

RENUKA DHANUSINGH NEKELE

¶46

VERSUS

¶47

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶48

AND

¶49

52 WRIT PETITION NO.2492 OF 2022

¶50

RAVI BHAGWANDAS VYAS

¶51

VERSUS

¶52

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶53

AND

¶54

WRIT PETITION NO.6292 OF 2022

¶55

SANDEEP ARUN WANI

¶56

VERSUS

¶57

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶58

AND

¶59

WRIT PETITION NO.6293 OF 2022

¶60

SABIR AHEMAD SHAKIL AHEMAD MUJAWAR

(3)

2461.22wp etc

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶65

AND

¶66

WRIT PETITION NO.6294 OF 2022

¶67

JITENDRA BHIMSING PATIL

¶68

VERSUS

¶69

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶70

AND

¶71

WRIT PETITION NO.6295 OF 2022

¶72

SHARAD VITTHAL BADGUJAR

¶73

VERSUS

¶74

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶75

AND

¶76

WRIT PETITION NO.2473 OF 2022

¶77

VAISHALI BHIMRAO BHALERAO

¶78

VERSUS

¶79

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶80

AND

¶81

WRIT PETITION NO.2470 OF 2022

¶82

BALASAHEB SHAMKANT WABLE VERSUS

¶83

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶84

Mr P. S. Gaikwad, Advocate for petitioners

¶85

Mr A. R. Kale, Mr S. K. Tambe, Mr S. G. Sangle, Mr P. K. Lakhotiya, A.G.Ps. for respondents/State

¶86

Mr Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, Advocate for respondent No.4 Mr R.R. Bangar, Advocate for respondent No.5 in WP/2461/22 Mr D. G. Nagode, Advocate for respondent No.5 in WP/2463/22 Mr Bhushan Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No.5 in WP/2464/22

¶87

Mr D. B. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent No.5 in WP/6292/22

¶88

2461.22wp etc

¶89

(4)

¶90

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

¶91

DATE : 20th June, 2022

¶92

PER COURT:

¶93

Identically placed six writ petitions, bearing Writ Petition Nos.6292/2022, 6293/2022, 6294/2022, 6295/2022, 2473/2022 and 2470/2022 are not on board today. By the consent of the parties, they are taken on board.

¶94

It is undisputed that in all these matters, the petitioners are either ‘Accountants’ or ‘Data Entry Operators’, working under the Taluka Health Officer, Chalisgaon. It is equally undisputed that each one of them has entered into a contractual service with the said office for a period of eleven months on an honourarium of Rs.5,000/- per month. No other allowances are payable to them. After completion of eleven months contractual service, the contract is to end by efflux of time. It is contended that, they are in the employment of respondent No.4 on the basis of such contractual service, ranging between 10 to 14 years.

¶95

Similarly situated petitioners had approached this Court in Writ Petition No.5252/2020 along with a large group of petitions,

¶96

2461.22wp etc

¶97

(5)

¶98

filed at Aurangabad, and by an order dated 24/11/2021, this Court concluded that, they cannot be granted regularization while working on a project with the Zilla Parishad. Each of these petitioners had accepted contractual service with eyes wide open and on consolidated payments.

¶99

We, therefore, find that, neither can we direct their regularization, nor could any such order be passed, for continuing them in service, in the light of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v/s Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1.

¶100

Since this Court observed in paragraph No.11 in it’s aforesaid order dated 24/11/2021, the petitioners may approach the State Government with a request for regularization and the State Government would consider, whether their grievance could be redressed. The petitioners pray that this Court should also issue a similar order.

¶101

We find that the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in Secretary, State of Karnataka V/s Umadevi (supra), that the appropriate authority may consider as a one time measure of granting regularization to such employees, who have completed

¶102

2461.22wp etc

¶103

(6)

¶104

more than 10 years. It calls for no debate that these petitioners cannot continue on contractual basis for their entire lifetime. Security of employment and pensionary and retiral benefits are inherently vital and decisive aspects, which enable a human being to live a life with dignity and respect. It is undisputed that the project under which they were appointed on contractual basis still continues and is executed through the Zilla Parishads in this State and funded by the Union of India under the National Health Mission.

¶105

In the aforesaid backdrop, these petitions are disposed off, with a direction to the Union of India and the State Government, to prepare a data of all such petitioners/employees, including those who have not approached the High Court or the Industrial Court, across the State of Maharashtra, and consider whether the Union of India and the State Government can introduce a measure for considering the absorption of such employees, in the light of the view expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka V/s Umadevi (supra).

¶106

We make it clear that, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of these petitioners and it is left to the

¶107

2461.22wp etc (7)

¶108

Union of India and the State Government to take a decision, keeping in view that the petitioners are approaching the Courts for seeking relief after having worked for more than 10 years on contractual basis. We expect the Union of India and the State Government to collect such data, on or before 20/10/2022 and take a policy decision as they may deem fit and appropriate, on or before 31/03/2023.

¶109

(ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶110

sjk

Sanjay Vanilal Bhavsar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Vanilal Bhavsar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek Shanshikant Agrawal Vs the Union of India through Its Secretary and Others

Girish Maganlal Bahalkar Vs the Union of India and Others

Girish Maganlal Bahalkar Vs the Union of India and Others

Ahemadi Siddiqui Abdul Majid Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pravin Dhanraj Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vipin Pratapsingh Pardeshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others