1 J-WP-1681-11.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1681/ 2011
1. Smt. Malutai Narayan Butke,
Aged about : 47 yrs. Occu : Service,
R/o Vishwashanti Nagar, Yavatmal.
(Pimpalgaon Road), Tah : and Dist.
Yavatmal.
2. Ashok Namdeorao Kotrange,
Aged about : 47 yrs; Occu : Service,
R/o Savitribai Society, Yavatmal.
3. Digambar Pandurang Borkar,
Aged about : 47 yrs; Occu: Service,
R/o Vitthalwadi, Patange Lay out,
Yavatmal.
4. Ashok Keshavrao Gadekar,
Aged about : 47 yrs; Occu: Service,
R/o Bagar Nagar, Yavatmal. ..... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through it's Secretary,
Medical Education and Research
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. Director of Medical Education and
Research Department, Govt. Dental
College Buldg. 4Th Floor, Fort,
Mumbai - 01.
3. Vasantrao Naik Government Medical
College and Hospital, Yavatmal,
through Dean.
4. Bhaskar Rambhau Chaudhari,
Aged about : Major.
5. Manoj Sheshrao Waghulkar,
Aged about : Major.
::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 00:40:42 :::
2 J-WP-1681-11.odt
6. Gajanan Nanji Hajare,
Aged about : Major.
7. Smt. Nanda Duryodhan Kumbhare,
Aged about : Major.
8. Omprakash Ramji Vetti,
Aged about : Major.
R/o Nos.4 to 8 all R/o C/o
Vasantrao Naik Government
Medical College, Yavatmal. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R. V. Vaidya, Adv. H/f Shri Anand Parchure, Adv. for the petitioners.
Mrs. M.S.Naik, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:-
SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATED :-
20/07/2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur, dated 11 th March, 2011 dismissing the original application filed by the petitioners.
The petitioners were appointed as Ward Boys / Ayas on ad hoc basis in Vasantrao Naik Government Medical College and Hospital, Yavatmal in the year 1994. The services of the petitioners were continued by the respondent No.3 as their services were required by the same. According to the petitioners, the services of the petitioners ought to have been regularized and / or they could not have been ::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 00:40:42 ::: 3 J-WP-1681-11.odt replaced by another ad-hoc employees. It is case of the petitioners that since the petitioners are working with the respondent No.3 for nearly 25 years, they cannot be replaced by other ad-hoc employees.
Shri Vaidya, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners are working with the respondent No.3 since in the year 1994 and the services of the petitioners are required by the respondent No.3, the respondent No.3 cannot issue an advertisement and appoint Ward Boys and Ayas on ad-hoc basis. It is submitted that though the services of the petitioners could not be regularized, the services need to be continued till the age of their retirement, as they are about to retire within a span of about 4 - 5 years. It is stated that an ad-hoc employee may not be replaced by another ad-hoc employee.
Mrs. Naik, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 has supported the order of the Tribunal. It is however fairly admitted on instructions that the petitioners are still working in respondent No.3 - college as Ward Boys and Ayas on ad-hoc basis. It is submitted that the petitioners' services cannot be regularized and the order of the Tribunal in that regard is just and proper.
Since the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners that they should not be replaced by the other ad-hoc employees is limited, the prayer needs to be granted, as the petitioners are working as Ward Boys ::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 00:40:42 ::: 4 J-WP-1681-11.odt and Ayas on ad-hoc basis for more than 25 years and almost all the petitioners would attain the age of retirement within 4 or 5 years. If that be so, it would not be just on the part of the respondent No.3 to replace the petitioners by other ad-hoc employees. The limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioners to continue them till they attain the age of retirement or regular appointments are made on the post of Ward Boys and Ayas is just and proper.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is modified. The respondent No.3 is restrained from replacing the petitioners by other ad-hoc employees. The respondent No.3 may consider continuing the petitioners on ad-hoc basis till they attain the age of superannuation.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Choulwar
::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 00:40:42 :::