High Court · 2025

Writ Petition No.6302/2018:: 1 ::IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.6302 OF 2018Smt. Vanmala w/o Shivling Mathpati… PETITIONERVERSUSThe State of Maharashtra & ors.… RESPONDENTS.......Mr. N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for PetitionerMr. S.B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for StateMr. V.C. Patil, Advocate holding for Mr. U.B. Bondar, Advocate for R.No.4 and 5 ....… CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT ANDNEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.DATE : 2nd JULY, 2025O R D E R : The Petitioner has rendered the service as ArogyaSevika (Auxiliary Nurse) with the Respondent No.4 ZillaParishad, Latur. The said services was from 30/8/1988 ontemporary basis. The Petitioner was given intermittent breaksand fresh orders of temporary appointments were issued fromtime to time till 2/2/1994. Thereafter the services of the Writ Petition No.6302/2018:: 2 ::Petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 5/2/1994. The Petitionermade representation on 21/8/2009 to the Respondent No.4Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur for regularisingher services from her first appointment by condoning thebreaks. The services of similarly placed Auxiliary Nurses wereregularised by the Respondent No.4 by order dated 12/6/2009by exercising the powers under the Maharashtra Civil Services(Leave) Rules, 1981. As no decision was taken on thePetitioner’s representation, she she has approached this Courtwith the following main prayer : B)Issue writ of mandamus or any other writ in the likenature, thereto direct the Respondents to regularize herservices w.e.f. 30/8/1988 (initial date of appointment)by condoning the break period in service during theperiod between 30/8/1988 upto 2/2/1994 and extend allthe monetary and pensionary benefits with arrears infavour of the Petitioner.2.It is submitted by learned Advocate for thePetitioner that, when the services of the similarly placedAuxiliary Nurses have been regularised by the RespondentNo.4 Zilla Parishad and the Petitioner is left out, it is nothing Writ Petition No.6302/2018:: 3 ::but discrimination. He submits that, though the reply has beenfiled by the Respondent No.4 Zilla Parishad, there is nojustification why the services of the Petitioner was notregularised since her first date of appointment and why shewas not continued in service from her first appointment. Hesubmits that, this Court, by order dated 3/9/2021, had directedthe Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.5 to enter specifreplies to paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the Petition. He submitsthat, on the ground of parity, the Petition be allowed.3.It is submitted by learned Advocate for the ZillaParishad that, initially the powers to regularise the services ofthe Auxiliary Nurses were with the Zilla Parishad andsubsequently the powers vested with the DivisionalCommissioner and, therefore, no decision could be taken byRespondent No.4 Zilla Parishad. He submits that, theproposal of the Petitioner along with other Auxiliary Nurseswas forwarded to the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad forregularisation on 2/12/2016, showing some discrepancies. Hesubmits that, in the meanwhile, the Government ofMaharashtra has issued the Government Resolution dated Writ Petition No.6302/2018:: 4 ::5/5/2018 not to regularise the services of the temporary/contractual employees in view of the decision of the Hon’bleApex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs.Umadevi & ors. [2006 AIR SCW 1991] and, therefore, thePetitioner’s services were not regularised with effect from herfirst appointment. He submits that, the Petition may bedismissed.4.It is submitted by learned A.G.P. for RespondentsNo.1 to 3 that, the Petitioner was working on contractual basisand in view of the above referred Government Resolutiondated 5/5/2018 issued by the Government, the Petitioner wasnot entitled for the relief of regularisation of her services fromthe first date of her appointment. He further submits that, theMaharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules are not applicableto the Petitioner as she was not the Government employee.He submits that, the Petitioner is not entitled for the prayersmade in the Petition.5.We have heard learned Advocates for all the sidesand have perused the papers on record. There is no disputethat, the Petitioner has rendered the services as Auxiliary Writ Petition No.6302/2018:: 5 ::Nurse from August 1988 to February 1994 on contractual basiswith intermittent breaks. It is also not in dispute that thePetitioner was regularised on the said post w.e.f. 5/2/1994.This Court, on 3/9/2021, has passed the following order : “1. We have briefly heard the learned Advocate forthe petitioner, the learned A.G.P. on behalf ofrespondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and the learned Advocaterepresenting respondent Nos.4 and 5.2. The petitioner has now superannuated as on 31stJuly 2017. She was appointed as an Auxiliary nursemidwife (ANM) on 30th August 1988 for temporaryperiods upto 2nd February 1994. By an order dated3rd February 1994 issued by the Zilla Parishad, Latur,the petitioner has been regularized from 5th February1994.3. In the above backdrop, the petitioner hasspecifically contended in paragraph 8 that ten ArogyaSevaks have been regularized by condoning differentbreaks in service introduced during their temporaryengagements as per Rule 50, 60 and 63 of theMaharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1981.Copy of the order has been placed on record atAnnexure “F”. Based on such pleadings, the petitionerprays that she should be treated equally with thesimilarly situated 10 employees. We find from theaffidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No. 1 and byrespondent Nos.4 and 5 that none of them havecontradicted the contents of paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 ofthe petition.4. We are of the prima facie view that if thepetitioner is equally placed with the 10 ArogyaSevaks, the law will have to be made applicableequally and there ought not to be discrimination. Writ Petition No.6302/2018:: 6 ::5. We, therefore, direct respondent No.1 andrespondent No.5 to enter specific replies to paragraphs8, 9 and 10 of the petition. Let such replies be filed onor before 23rd September 2021.”6.Though the Respondent No.1 has filed replyaffidavit pursuant to said order dated 3/9/2021, the affidavit-in-reply is totally silent in respect of specific reply on theparagraphs which were quoted in the above referred order. AtExhibit F to the Petition is the order issued by the RespondentNo.4 Zilla Parishad, regularising the services of the AuxiliaryNurses from the date of initial appointment on contractualbasis, by condoning the break by exercising the powers underRules 50, 60 and 63 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave)Rules, 1981. There is no dispute that the Petitioner and theaforesaid Auxiliary Nurses are similarly placed. A copy of thecommunication at Exhibit E, Page 18 of the Petition showsthat, the similarly placed Auxiliary Nurses working with theKolhapur Zilla Parishad were also given the benefit ofregularisation in the services from the period of their firstappointment as contractual employees. The claim of thePetitioner, as can be seen from the representation, was made Writ Petition No.6302/2018:: 7 ::on 21/8/2009 and the order of the Zilla Parishad, Latur and thatof the Government in respect of Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur are ofJune 2009 and August 2009 respectively. There is no reply asto why the Petitioner was left out when similarly placedAuxiliary Nurses were given the benefit of regularisation fromthe date of their initial appointment on contractual basis. Thisamounts to discrimination. The contention of learned A.G.P.that the Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules will not beapplicable to the Petitioner falls down since the Zilla Parishad,Latur, by order dated 12/6/2009, has regularised the servicesof the similarly placed Auxiliary Nurses by exercising thepowers under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules.Thus, on the ground of parity, we allow the Writ Petition interms of prayer clause (B), except monetary benefits, whichshall be paid to the Petitioner from the date of filing of the WritPetition i.e. 4/6/2018. (NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.) fmp/-