RAVINDRA v. GHUGE AND R.M. JOSHI, JJ.) DATE
Facts
- 1 -IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.7083 OF 2019Ramdas Bangar Patil,Age-65 years, Occu-Retired Government Servant,R/o At Post : Devbhane,Tq. and Dist.Dhule -- PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra,Through its Chief Secretary,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32, 2. The Secretary,Planning Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai3. The Divisional Commissioner,Nasik Division, Nasik,4. The Collector,Collectorate Dhule,Tq. and Dist.Dhule5. The Chief Executive Officer,Zilla Parishad, Dhule,Tq. and Dist. Dhule6. The Executive Engineer,Zilla Parishad, Works Department No.5,Dhule, Tq. And Dist Dhule7. The Block Education Officer,Panchayat Samiti, Dhule,Tq. and Dist. Dhule -- RESPONDENTSMr.V.P.Golewar, Advocate for the Petitioner. khs/April 2024/7083
Legal Reasoning
- 5 -[B] WP No.7152/2019 (Bhagwantrao Shamrao Ahirrao)(a)He was appointed on daily wages to maintain the attendanceregister on 20.05.1986. (b)He was terminated on 08.08.1989. (c)He preferred Complaint (ULP) No.146/1989, which was allowedby judgment dated 28.09.1992.(d)He was reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.(e)He superannuated on 01.05.2018. 5.In the judgment delivered in Kishor Gaikwad (supra), theDivision Bench at the Principal Seat, upon placing reliance on MoneRashmi (supra), recorded in paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 as under :-“10. We are of the view that the interest of justice would be served ifthe Petitioners are absorbed from the date of the reference or filing ofthe complaints before Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunal as the casemay be. The said date would undoubtedly have a rationale as the datewhen the dispute in respect of the petitioners’ termination has taken tothe Labour Court/Tribunal. However, we are conscious of the fact thatthe grant of absorption from the dates of filing of thereference/complaints would impose a financial burden on the StateGovernment, we would therefore modulate the relief insofar as thekhs/April 2024/7083
Arguments
- 2 -Mr.R.K.Ingole, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.Mr.N.N.Desale, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. WITHWRIT PETITION NO.7152 OF 2019Bhagwantrao s/o Shamrao Ahirrao,Age-61 years, Occu-Retired Government Servant,R/o 36-A, Indrayani Nagar, Opposite Omshree Mall,Near Market Committee, Sakri,Tq. Sakri, dist. Dhule-- PETITIONER VERSUS1. The State of Maharashtra,Through its Chief Secretary,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32, 2. The Secretary,Planning Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai3. The Divisional Commissioner,Nasik Division, Nasik,4. The Collector,Collectorate Dhule,Tq. and Dist.Dhule5. The Chief Executive Officer,Zilla Parishad, Dhule,Tq. and Dist. Dhule6. The Executive Engineer,Zilla Parishad, Works Department No.5,Dhule, Tq. And Dist Dhule7. The Block Education Officer,Panchayat Samiti, Sakri,Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhule -- RESPONDENTSkhs/April 2024/7083 - 3 -Mr.V.P.Golewar h/f Mr.Amol Sawant, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.V.M.Kagne, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr.N.N.Desale, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. ( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND R.M. JOSHI, JJ.) DATE : APRIL 18, 2024ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally bythe consent of the parties.2.These matters are taken up in the special drive to decidethe pending pension cases. After considering the extensive submissionsof the learned Advocates for the respective sides, upon perusing thePetition paper books and considering the law settled on the point ofgranting regularization to Mustering Assistant in the light of theScheme of the State Government enshrined under the GR dated01.12.1995, these Petitioners are entitled for reckoning their entirelength of service strictly as per the scheme dated 01.12.1995, for thepurposes of the Pensionary benefits.3.We could have reproduced the observations of this Courtkhs/April 2024/7083 - 4 -( Coram : Anoop V. Mohta and Ravindra V.Ghuge, JJ.) set out in thejudgment dated 04.05.2017 delivered at the Principal seat in WPNo.13220/2016 (Mone Rashmi Shriram Vs. The State of Maharashtraand Others), 2017(4) BCR 623. However, we do not wish to increasethe length of this judgment. Suffice it to say that, the said judgment inMone Rashmi (supra), dated 04.05.2017 was heavily relied upon bythis Court at the Principal Seat in WP No.8908/2015 (Kishor DigambarGaikwad Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others), decided videjudgment dated 12.10.2018.4.For the purposes of these Petitions, the following sequenceof events would be relevant. [A] WP No.7083/2019 (Ramdas Bangar Patil)(a) The Petitioner joined duties as a daily wager for maintaining theattendance register on 25.02.1983. (b)He was discontinued on 07.04.1986. (c) He preferred complaint (ULP) No.131/1994, which was allowedby the judgment dated 19.09.1997, delivered by the Labour Court andhe was reinstated with continuity and full back wages. Hesuperannuated on 31.01.2014.khs/April 2024/7083
Decision
- 6 -liability on account of the arrears that would arise. We therefore, allowthe petitions and issue the following directions :-(i) The petitioners would be entitled to absorption in Governmentservice from the date of filing of the reference/Complaint in the LabourCourt/Industrial as the case may be, as shown in the tables hereinaboveproduced. The date should be assigned is the 1st of June of theparticular year. For example in respect of the petitioner KishorDigambar Gaikwad the date would be 01/06/1992.(ii) That the petitioners would not be entitled to any monetary benefitsin the form of arrears on the said basis but the said date would betaken into consideration for notionally fixing the salary of thepetitioners/Pension of such of the petitioners who have retired, for thepurposes of seniority and promotional benefits, if applicable. Theexercise of notionally fixing the salary of the petitioners who are inservice, and pension of the petitioners who have retired would be donelatest by 31st January 2019.(iii) Insofar as the petitioners who are in service, they would be paidsalary after carrying out the exercise of notional fixation. The revisedsalary would be payable from December 2018.(iv) Insofar the petitioners whose petitions are pending in this Court,the date of absorption as stipulated by the instant Judgment would besubject to outcome of the said petitions.11. The petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule isaccordingly made absolute with parties to bear their own costs.”6.In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to follow thekhs/April 2024/7083 - 7 -course adopted by this Court in Mone Rashmi (supra) and in KishorGaikwad (supra). 7.The learned Advocate Mr.Desale has placed reliance uponan order passed by this Court at Aurangabad, dated 09.03.2022 in WPNo.13860/2018, 13863/2018 and 13864/2018 (Arun Baliram DevreVs. The State of Maharashtra and Others). It is obvious that the viewtaken by this Court in Mone Rashmi Shriram (supra), Kishor Gaikwad(supra) and the judgment delivered in WP No.12043/2016 atAurangabad in Kadu Mahadu Bhawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra andOthers, decided on 06.09.2017, was not referred to. So also, thejudgment of this Court at Aurangabad delivered in WP No.2946/1997,which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court taking into accountthe date of joining as 01.10.1988, was also not referred to. 8.In view of the above, these Writ Petitions are partlyallowed in terms of paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 in Kishor Gaikwad(supra) reproduced above and the notional date for considering theabsorption of these Petitioners, would be the dates of the filing of theirULP complaints, i.e. 131/1994 and 146/1989, respectively. khs/April 2024/7083 - 8 -9.Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms. 10.The notional fixation of salary of the Petitioners andcalculation of the pensionary benefits, so as to complete the pensionpapers and commence the payment of pension, shall be done in 90 daystime by the Zilla Parishad / Respondent. ( R.M.JOSHI, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)khs/April 2024/7083