State of Maha., Thr. Principal Secretary, Higher and Tecnical Education Dept., Mumbai and Ors. Vs Dr. Vijay Rupraoji Sirsath

The State Government has filed this petition questioning the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur in Original Application No. 334 of 2021, filed by the respondent.

¶15

The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur vide impugned judgment and order dated 22.11.2023 allowed the original application and directed the petitioners to regularize the services of the applicant/ respondent from the date of his initial appointment from 31.10.1999 till 08.02.2007, for the purpose of counting his service for pensionary benefits.

¶16

The learned Tribunal while allowing such claim of the respondent has recorded in para Nos.17, 18, 27 and 28 as follows:

¶17

920.wp.3009.2024.odt

¶18

2

¶19

“17. Dr. Ashish Mahalle had filed the O.A. No. 38/2021 before this Tribunal. This Tribunal as held in para Nos. 10 to 15 as under-

¶20

There is no dispute that the applicant was appointed on 30/09/1999. His service was continued with technical breaks as per the order of this Tribunal, their services were protected and applicant along with other employees were continued in service. They had preferred the Writ Petition No. 1460/2002 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur. The Hon'ble High Court had granted interim relief on 16/4/2002 and continued the protection of service given by the Tribunal. Other similarly situated employees who were appointed along with applicant had also filed W.Ps. 10145/2014 and 7461/2014 (P-113). Those petitions were jointly decided on 27/01/2015. On the basis of the decision of High Court, the Govt. had taken a decision on 13/03/2015 to regularise the services of ad-hoc employees those who were in Govt. service. Material portion of para-2 of the G.R. is reproduced as under -

¶21

2- ‘kkldh; vfHk;kaf=dh o vkS”k/kfuekZ.k egkfo|ky;krhy gaxkeh o da=kVh Lo:ikr dk;Zjr vlysY;k 34 v/;kidkauh ;kizdj.kh ek- mPp U;k;ky;kus fnysY;k vkns’kkuqlkj R;kaP;k lsok fu;fer dj.;kckcr fofo/k U;k;ky;kr ;kfpdk nk[ky dsY;k vkgsr- ;kiSdh U;k;ky;kr izyafcr vlysY;k fjV fiVh’ku dza- 10145@2014 o 7641@2014 ;k ;kfpdsP;k vuq”kaxkus ek- mPp U;k;ky; eqacbZ [kaMihB ;kauh ,d=hri.ks fn27@01@2015 jksth iq<hy izek.ks vkns’k fnys vkgsr-

¶22

“Hence for the reasons recorded in the judgment dated 99/90/2093 in Writ Petition No. 708& of 2090, we partly allow these writ petitions and direct the respondents to regularise the services and confer permanency on such petitioners, who have completed 3 years of service with technical breaks and who are still in service. The respondents are directed to absorb the petitioners within a period of & weeks and pay the regular salary to the petitioners from the date of their absorption. Just like the order passed in the Writ Petition No. 2084 of 2090, though we direct the respondents to grant continuity of service to the petitioners, we make it clear that the petitioners would not be entitled to claim any monetary benefits towards the past services rendered by them."

¶23

There is no dispute that the applicant was appointed as a Reader in the Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharashtra University, Nagpur. It is government recognised post. The applicant applied for relieving him from Engineering College of Amravati. He was relieved to join the new posting as a Reader. The applicant was in continuous service when he joined the post of Reader in the year 2009.

¶24

The applicant was made permanent on the post of Professor as per office order dated 11/05/2011 (P-162) of Vice Chancellor, Rastra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj University, Nagpur. The applicant was appointed by the MPSC on the post of Professor in Govt. Engineering College, Jalgaon as per the order dated 28/12/2016 (Annex-A-17). The applicant could not join and therefore on his request he was posted at Amravati in the Govt. Engineering College.

¶25

920.wp.3009.2024.odt

¶26

3

¶27

It is clear from the documents filed on record that whole service of the applicant was as a Lecturer in the Government Engineering College and as a Reader in the Laxminarayan Institute of Technology. The services of the applicant were protected by this Tribunal and thereafter by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur has passed the order in Writ Petition No. 2046/2010. In para-22 of the order passed in Writ Petition No.2046/2010 is reproduced as under :

¶28

"22. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of such of the petitioners and confer permanency on such petitioners who have completed three years' service with technical breaks. The respondents shall absorb the petitioners within a period of six weeks. Needless to state that the petitioners who are in continuous employment till 15.10.2013, shall be continued in service as regular employees.

¶29

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the petitioners shall be entitled to regular salary from 1st November, 2013 and would not be entitled to claim any monetary benefits for the past services rendered by them in spite of their regularization. Needless to state that since the petitioners' services are regularized, they shall be entitled to the continuity in service for all other purposes except monetary purposes from the date of their first appointment."

¶30

The applicant was in service for more than three years from 1999, therefore, he is also entitled for the same relief in view of the G.R. dated 28/2/2017. On the basis of the Judgment of Bombay High Court, similarly situated employees like the applicant were regularised. Therefore, the same treatment should have been given by the respondents to the applicant in view of G.R. dated 28/2/2017. The Judgments pointed out by the learned counsel for applicant show that similarly situated employees approached to the Tribunal / High Court got the benefit of old pension scheme by counting their ad-hoc services as a regular services. In Writ Petition No. 5273/2017 decided on 3/7/2019, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur passed the following order -

¶31

"(4) Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents no.1 and 2 are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner regarding taking into account the ad-hoc service of the petitioner for granting continuity in service, making of placement in service and grant all pensionary and retiral benefit to the petitioner on the same line as they have done following the directions issued by this Court on 17/9/2018 in Writ Petition No.4770/2017. Of course, we make it clear here that some facts extent, the discretion can be appropriately exercised by the respondents."

¶32

The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Mumbai in O.A. 43/2018 granted relief to the similarly situated employees whose services were ad-hoc basis. It was declared that period of employment of the said employees, i.e., the

¶33

920.wp.3009.2024.odt

¶34

4

¶35

temporary period shall be treated as ad-hoc employee for the consideration of benefit of time bound promotion. The break in service being a technical break shall be treated as continuity in service.

¶36

The present applicant is similarly situated employee like Dr. Ashish Mahalle. This Tribunal has allowed the O.A.No.38/2021 by passing the following order (i) The O.A. is allowed.

¶37

(ii) The impugned communications dated 17/1/2022 and 21/1/2022 are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶38

(ili) The respondents are directed to regularise the service of the applicant from the date of his initial appointment from 30/09/1999 for the purpose of counting his services for pensionery benefits. The respondents are directed to give all the benefits of old pension scheme to the applicant treating his regular service from 30/09/1999.

¶39

(V) No order as to costs.

¶40

The applicant is the similarly situated employee like Dr. Ashish Mahalle. The respondents i.e. the State of Maharashtra has issued the G.R. dated 28/02/2017. By the said G.R., the Government of Maharashtra has decided to give similar treatment to the similarly situated employees. That G.R. was issued by the Government of Maharashtra as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava reported in 2015 (1) SCC, 347.

¶41

The respondents were expected to give the similar treatment to the applicant, because, he is a similarly situated employee as like Dr. Ashish Mahalle and others. The respondents are not following their own G.Rs. Other similarly situated ad-hoc lecturers were regularised by the respondents as per the G.R. dated 13/03/2015 (P-56). The Government of Maharashtra has complied the Judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in W.P.Nos. 10145/2014 and 7461/2014. The applicant is the similarly situated person and therefore as per the G.R. 28/02/2017, the applicant is entitled for the equal treatment as like other similarly situated employees."

¶42

Having gone through the above referred paras and on perusal of the record we do not find any merit in the present petition as the findings recorded by the Tribunal are just and proper. Moreover, no perversity has been pointed out

¶43

5 920.wp.3009.2024.odt

¶44

in granting such relief and allowing the original application in favour of the respondent.

¶45

Thus, in absence of any merit in the present petition, we dismiss the same. No order as to costs.

¶46

[RAJNISH R. VYAS, J] [ANIL S. KILOR, J.]

¶47

Namrata

State of Maha., Thr. Principal Secretary, Higher and Tecnical Education Dept., Mumbai and Ors. v. Dr. Vijay Rupraoji Sirsath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maha., Thr. Principal Secretary, Higher and Tecnical Education Dept., Mumbai and Ors. v. Dr. Vijay Rupraoji Sirsath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kartik Mangal Jule Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Department of Public Health, Mumbai and Ors.

Rajendra Mohan Deokate and Ors. Vs the State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Dept. of Public Health, Mumbai and Ors.

Sarmatiya Mohammad Asif Abdul Gaffar Vs the State Election Commission, Thr. Commissioner, Mumbai and Others

Bhagyashri Vikas Jaybhaye Vs the State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Public Health Officer, Mumbai and Ors.

Mahmad Zuber Usman Gani Memon and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Public Health Officer, Mumbai and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, Mumbai and Ors. Vs Rahimullah S. Shaikh