RAVINDRA v. GHUGEAND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ
Legal Reasoning
2185.22wp(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 901 WRIT PETITION NO. 2185 OF 2022Parasram s/o. Ranganath Gaikwad,Age : 57 years, Occu. Service,R/o Walki, Tq. Nagar,Dist. Ahmednagar….PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary,Animal Husbandry Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai2.The Commissioner,Animal Husbandry, Maharashtra State,Aundh, Pune-73.Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar,Through its Chief Executive Officer ….RESPONDENTS ….Mr C. K. Shinde, Advocate for PetitionerMr S. K. Tambe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2Mr S. T. Shelke, Advocate for Respondent No.3 CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGEAND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 5th September, 2024 2185.22wp(2) ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)1.We are permitting the Petitioner to add prayer clause(B-1) in view of the submissions. Addition of prayer clause becarried out forthwith.2.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heardfinally by the consent of the learned Advocates for the respectivesides.3.The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that,since the Petitioner has attained the age of superannuation of 60years, on 30/06/2024, he is no longer granted any work byRespondent No.3/ Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar as a ‘Part-timeSweeper’ in the Class-IV category. Hence, he is now praying forthe outstanding monthly wages/arrears and for absorption orcompensation in lieu of absorption/retiral benefits/pensionarybenefits/gratuity, etc. 4.The admitted factors in this matter, are as under :- 2185.22wp(3) (a)The Petitioner has been given work of a Part-timeSweeper in the Veterinary Hospital (Ik’kqoSn;dh; nok[kkuk) ofthe Zilla Parishad at Walki, Taluka and DistrictAhmednagar. (b)He started his work in 1983, with a fixed pay ofRs.110/- per month. Subsequently, the monthly consolidatedpay was increased to Rs.210/- per month.(c)From 2009, he started receiving salary @ Rs.1800/-per month. Since January, 2016, his monthly fixed salary isRs.4587/-.(d)He has attained the age of superannuation oncompletion of 60 years and is no longer given such work,after 30/06/2024.(e)By the Government Resolution dated 05/05/2016,issued by the Rural Development Department, Governmentof Maharashtra, 25% of the category ‘D’ employees havebeen reduced and the said posts have been abolished. (f)The Commissioner of the Animal HusbandryDepartment, Government of Maharashtra has issued aCircular dated 24/03/2016, wherein it is provided that
Legal Reasoning
2185.22wp(4) Part-time Sweepers should be granted adequate wages sincethey are working on meager pay. Those working in theVeterinary Dispensary/Clinic should be paid at least 60% ofthe basic pay of Rs.4300/-, which comes to Rs.2850/-.(g)It is further provided that, with every wage revisionunder the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, their consolidatedpay should also be revised. So also, 60% of the DearnessAllowance (D.A.), also became payable. In Clause 12 ofthe said Circular, it is mentioned that, those Part-timeSweepers, who have been working for long tenures, shouldbe given preference for absorption when it comes to fillingup of posts of ‘Attendant’ (Parichar) Class-IV category, inthe Department of Animal Husbandry.5.The District Animal Husbandry Officer, ZillaParishad, Ahmednagar has filed an affidavit-in-reply, dated30/08/2024. It is contended that the said Circular dated24/03/2016, has been issued in order to streamline the payment ofmonthly salary to the Part-time Sweepers in the Zilla Parishads inthe State and to bring uniformity. It is further contended in 2185.22wp(5) paragraph No.2 that, since the Petitioner is seeking absorption onthe post of the ‘Attendant’ Class -IV, in the Animal HusbandryDepartment under the Zilla Parishad, by virtue of Clause 12 of thesaid Circular, the Part-time Sweeper can be absorbed if the post isvacant in the Animal Husbandry Department, having regard to hisexperience, conduct and performance. 6.It is further stated in paragraph No.3 that, theGovernment Resolution dated 05/05/2016 was issued and 240posts of ‘Attendant’ on the establishment of Ahmednagar ZillaParishad have been abolished/reduced from the earlier total postsof 959. Since 2016, not a single post of ‘Attendant’ was recruitedby the Zilla Parishad through a regular selection process. It isthen submitted that the Petitioner was working for around 30 to45 minutes and thereafter, he was free to do any job elsewhere.7.The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits thatthe work performed by him was sweeping in the VeterinaryHospital at Walki. By the very nature of the work, it could nothave been completed within 30 to 40 minutes. Cleaning aveterinary hospital through out the day, requires long duration at a 2185.22wp(6) Veterinary facility. After working for half day, neither would havethe Zilla Parishad tolerated the Petitioner taking up a jobelsewhere on any Part-time post, nor would the Petitioner get anyjob in any establishment since he would not be available for halfday. 8.In the light of the above, the Respondents have takena definite stand that, the Petitioner is neither entitled forregularization with regular pay-scale, nor he can be held eligiblefor payment of pension and gratuity.9.The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has submittedthat, since the Petitioner has worked for 41 years from 07/06/1983till 30/06/2024, it would be a long drawn battle if he was tocontinue to litigate for seeking regularization and pensionarybenefits. He, therefore, submits that, the Petitioner is tired of thelong wait for service benefits and would be satisfied if he getslumpsum compensation in lieu of regularization, retiral benefits,pensionary benefits/gratuity, etc. 2185.22wp(7) 10.In the above, we deem it appropriate to refer to thefollowing judgments :-I)Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Bhola Singh, (2005) 2 SCC 470;II)Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1;III)Kurukshetra Central Cooperative Bank Limited Vs. Mehar Chand and another, (2007) 15 SCC 680;IV)State of Karnataka and others Vs. G. V. Chandrashekar, (2009) 4 SCC 342; andV)Neelima Srivastava Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2021) 17 SCC 69311.In Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra), the Hon’bleSupreme Court declined absorption to a Trainee/Apprentice,concluding that a Trainee or Apprentice is a candidate, who has toundergo training and there cannot be an automatic absorption. 12.In Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (supra),the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed framing of a scheme byway of a policy for facilitating absorption of those employees, 2185.22wp(8) who have been working for more than a decade as a one timemode of absorption. The State and the Zilla Parishad contendbefore us that, such a scheme cannot be framed for an individualas like the Petitioner. Moreover, despite the judgment delivered inSecretary, State of Karnataka (supra), the State of Maharashtra hasnot yet come forward with any such scheme in any suchDepartment, whereby those who have been working for decades,could be absorbed in employment. We, therefore, deem itappropriate to suggest that the State Government should considerintroducing an absorption policy for such Part-time Sweepers andPart-time Attendants/Class-IV employees, working in the ZillaParishads in the State of Maharashtra and similar Stateinstrumentalities.13.In Kurukshetra Central Cooperative Bank Limited(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that, the Part-timeSweeper was found necessary and therefore, his services wererequired from 1977. It concluded that the concerned Bankrequired the services of a Sweeper. The decision of the HighCourt in concluding that the Bank can decide whether it requires a 2185.22wp(9) full time or a Part-time Sweeper, was quashed and set aside.Being a Bank, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed it to regularizethe appellant if the Bank actually required a full time post ofSweeper.14.In State of Karnataka Vs. G. V. Chandrashekar(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that, if the initialentering in service was illegal and the recruitment was contrary tothe constitutional scheme, the claim for regularization deserves tobe rejected. In the instant case, the fact that the Zilla Parishadpermitted the Petitioner to work on Part-time post of Sweeper for41 years, is undisputed. However, since the Petitioner has directlyapproached this Court, there is no proof or a conclusion that postsof ‘Sweepers’ were vacant and available with the Zilla Parishadand yet the Petitioner was not regularized in employment. 15.In Neelima Srivastava Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that, thoughtemporary, contractual, casual, daily wages employees had noright to claim regularization, unless an appointment was made in 2185.22wp(10) terms of relevant service rules governing the appointment byadherence with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, theonly exception is that the incumbent has worked for 10 years onduly sanctioned post without benefits or protection of any interimorder passed by any Court or Tribunal, and if the appointment ofsuch employee was not illegal.16.The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the ZillaParishad has submitted that, after 2016, there has been norecruitment of a regular ‘Attendant’ (Parichar) in the Class-IVcategory. No post has been filled in. This indicates that thoughthe Petitioner has been dedicatedly working from 1983, he wasapparently not considered. In our view, when the Petitioner wasworking from 1983 as a Part-time Sweeper, and when the abovereferred Circular dated 24/03/2016 permitted granting preferenceto the Part-time employee, when it came to recruitment on thepost of an ‘Attendant’, the Petitioner could have been considered.17.Keeping in view that the State of Maharashtra hasnow abolished 25% of the posts of Attendant/ Class IV category,it would become even more difficult for absorption of the 2185.22wp(11) Petitioner. So also, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of thiscase, we do not find it appropriate to direct absorption of thePetitioner, as a stand alone case. If the Zilla Parishad introduces ascheme for an absorption of such Part-time Sweepers, who havebeen long working with the Zilla Parishads, the said policydecision would have to be implemented as regards the ZillaParishads in the State of Maharashtra. It is a matter ofcircumspection, as to how much time would be required for theState Government to introduce any such policy. Even byconsidering Appendix XII (Rule 5) of the Maharashtra ZillaParishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, morespecifically, Clause 3-A (ii) SWEEPER, there is no provision forgranting regularization to a Part-time Sweeper. In short, such aPart-time Sweeper could only be absorbed in service in the lightof the Circular dated 24/03/2016, issued by the Commissioner ofthe Animal Husbandry Department, Maharashtra State, as on date.18.In view of the peculiar facts recorded as above, we areinclined to accept the request of the Petitioner that, having workedfor 41 years, now that the Petitioner has become senior citizen and 2185.22wp(12) he would not receive a single penny for sustaining himself, thatsuch a case be considered for grant of lumpsum compensation. 19.Recently, in matters, where the employees wereworking on the regular establishment for 30 years (ForestDepartment), this Court has delivered a verdict on 28/08/2024 inWrit Petition No. 12935/2023 (Bhagwat Nagraj Patil Vs. State ofMaharashtra and others) and group of matters. We have grantedRs.10,00,000/- as lumpsum compensation to these Patitioners. 20.Considering that the Petitioner before us was workingfor 41 years as a Part-time Sweeper, and since he would not beentitled for any service benefits after crossing the age ofsuperannuation, we deem it appropriate to grant a lumpsumcompensation of Rs.7,50,000/- to the Petitioner, in lieu ofregularization, retiral benefits, pensionary benefits, gratuity,statutory benefits as like the Provident Fund, etc. The saidamount shall be paid by Respondent No.3/Zilla Parishad within aperiod of 60 days. We leave it open to the Zilla Parishad, ifpermissible in law, to seek grants from the Animal HusbandryDepartment, Government of Maharashtra for making such 2185.22wp(13) payment. However, we make it clear that, this should not be aground for not paying the said amount to the Petitioner within 60days from today.21.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is partlyallowed. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms. (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)sjk