1 WP.3065.02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3065 OF 2002.
Balwant Sadashiv Gadge,
R/o C/o M.H. Mohod,
(Navneet Building) Beside
Kharote Jewellery Shop,
Near Shreyas Apartment,
Rautwadi, Akola, District
Akola. ..... PETITIONER.
....Versus....
1] State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Higher and
Technical Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
2] Director of Vocational Education
& Training, 3 Mahapalika Marg,
Post Box No. 10036, Mumbai-
400 001,
3] Deputy Director of Vocational
Education & Training, Regional
Office, Amravati, Dist. Amravati,
4] Principal, Industrial Training
Institute, Akola, Dist. Akola. ...... RESPONDENTS.
Mr. A. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. A.R. Kulkarni, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : JANUARY 4, 2018.
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2018 01:49:07 :::
2 WP.3065.02
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
, J.)
1] Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2] The petitioner who started working against a clear
permanent post from 4.7.1986 seeks quashing of order dated 1.7.2002 delivered by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 231/01.
3] Mr. A. Deshpande, learned Advocate for petitioner, submits that G.R. dated 19.9.1975 was not applicable in case of petitioner and has been erroneously relied upon by respondents and accepted by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. 4] Ms. A.R. Kulkarni, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3, has taken us through order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, particularly paragraph no.3 and also through G.R. dated 19.9.1975. She submits that it gives benefit to employee for the purposes of computing his qualifying service. 5] Facts are not in dispute. Petitioner joined services as Craft Instructor initially on 24.1.1985 for a period of six months ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2018 01:49:07 ::: 3 WP.3065.02 against a temporary vacancy as holder of that post Shri Patil was deputed for training. After this first appointment, again he got another appointment on 30.7.1985 as Turner Instructor as stop-gap arrangement for a period of 11 months. The vacancy was not permanent. It is thereafter that he got a regular appointment as per order dated 1.7.1986. The discussion shows that it was against a permanent and clear vacancy. Since that date, petitioner has continued in employment without any break and disturbance. 6] In his service record, date of permanency has been recorded as 4.7.1989 and this was questioned before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. Respondents relied upon provisions contained in Government Resolution dated 19.9.1975 and Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has accepted it. Therefore, Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has found that permanency given to petitioner from 4.7.1989 is proper. 7] Perusal of G.R. dated 19.9.1975 shows that it is meant for temporary Government servants who have continued as such and were getting extensions as temporary Government servants. Issue of giving permanency to them was pending before the State Government and State Government thought it proper to recognize ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2018 01:49:07 ::: 4 WP.3065.02 them as permanent after they put in three years as temporary servants. Thus, a temporary servant, who may have worked as stop- gap arrangement or against leave vacancy on 2-3 posts, can after completion of three years' service be recognised as permanent Government servant, though at that juncture he may not be holding any post permanently. Thus, absence of a permanent clear vacancy to accommodate such temporary servant has been taken care of and intention is to recognize service put in by such Government servant as qualifying service, though technically he does not hold any post under the Government.
8] The facts at hand show that on 4.7.1986 there was a permanent and clear vacancy and petitioner has been appointed against it. As such, above-mentioned G.R. cannot be used to his prejudice by subtracting three years of service rendered by him after 4.7.1986. G.R. dated 19.9.1975 is not meant to be applicable in such situations. Petitioner, therefore, deserves to be treated as permanent servant from 4.7.1986 itself.
9] Accordingly, we quash and set aside the order dated 1.7.2002 in O.A. No. 231/01 and direct respondents to record services of petitioner from 4.7.1986 as permanent service for all ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2018 01:49:07 ::: 5 WP.3065.02 purposes.
10] The Writ Petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE. JUDGE.
J.
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2018 01:49:07 :::