1 WP.3313.00
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3313 OF 2000.
Shri Uday s/o Dattatrya Godse,
aged about 32 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Near Water Tank, Wanjari
Nagar, Nagpur. ..... PETITIONER.
....Versus....
Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur
Municipal Corporation, having
its Office at Civil Lines, Nagpur. ...... RESPONDENT.
Mr. B.D. Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner,
Mr. S.M. Puranik, Advocate for the respondent.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 8, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI , J.) 1] Heard Mr. B.D. Pandit, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. S.M. Puranik, learned Advocate for the respondent. 2] Mr. B.D. Pandit, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submits that action of respondents in recognising petitioner as Lower ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 01:13:48 ::: 2 WP.3313.00 Division Clerk only from 25.10.2011 Is unsustainable. The petitioner worked on daily wages from 1986 to 1996 and on 28.6.1996 he was appointed in a pay-scale on temporary basis as a Labour in Lighting Department. However, he never worked as Labour and was always working and has worked as Clerk. Hence, after putting in service of 240 days continuously on said post, petitioner must be recognized as a Clerk from said date. Prayer in the petition is to grant the declaration accordingly and to direct respondent employer to treat him as Clerk.
3] Mr. B.D. Pandit, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submits that petitioner's services from 1986 onwards need to be treated and counted for the purposes of computing qualifying service for pension and other benefits.
4] Mr. S.M. Puranik, learned Advocate for the respondent Corporation, states that provisions of Standing Order or any other welfare legislation have not been relied upon and petition has been filed directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court seeking the relief. He submits that in the light of judgment of Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & others .vs. Umadevi & others reported in AIR 2006 ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 01:13:48 ::: 3 WP.3313.00 S.C. 1306, the demand as made is erroneous and unsustainable. 5] He further submits that though there is no reply affidavit on these lines before this Court as per his knowledge, services of petitioner from 1996 may be treated as qualifying service for computing pension and part of his service before that may be looked into if occasion therefor arises. He is however seeking time to obtain definite instructions in this respect and to file appropriate affidavit on record.
6] The present petition has been filed on 14.7.2000 and at that time petitioner was working as a Clerk but then was designated as Labour and receiving salary as Labour. During the pendency of the petition, on 25.10.2011 an order has been issued in his favour and in favour of about 76 other similarly situated employees. He has been designated as Junior Clerk and offered pay-scale. He has been given promotion against a vacant post in Tax Assessment Department. Thus, petitioner seeks retrospective effect to order dated 25.10.2011.
7] We find that services put in by petitioner from 1986 continuously till 28.6.1996 when he was made a Labour on temporary ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 01:13:48 ::: 4 WP.3313.00 basis in Lighting Department are not in dispute. Fact that he was asked to work in Tax Assessment Department on 5.7.1996 is also not in dispute. His contention that though designated as a Labour, work of Clerk was extracted from him is also not in dispute. 8] However, we cannot forget that all these contentions are being raised in a writ jurisdiction before this Court. Had petitioner invoked welfare legislation in Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act or under Bombay Industrial Relations Act, the situation would have or may have been otherwise. Here, we have to consider the position in the light of constitutional constraints and, therefore, as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka .vs. Umadevi, cited supra.
9] The petitioner has not pointed out availability of a vacant post from 28.6.1996 or then at any time before 25.10.2011 and we cannot in this jurisdiction direct employer to give him that post. Similarly, though completion of 240 days of continuous service may have some relevance in Labour or Industrial Court, in this jurisdiction mere completion of 240 days cannot result in conferring upon him right to post.
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 01:13:48 :::
5 WP.3313.00
10] Perusal of order dated 25.10.2011 passed by respondent
shows that after considering qualification, available vacancies and seniority, various employees have been accommodated on the post of Clerk. We cannot find any fault with said action. 11] In this situation, with liberty to petitioner to take such other steps as are open to him in law, we dispose of present petition. No costs.
JUDGE. JUDGE.
J.
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 01:13:48 :::