Bombay High Court
Maroti Laxmanro Dahiwal vs The State Of Mah And Ors on 26 April, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
553.2013WP.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.553 OF 2013
Maroti Laxmanrao Dahiwal,
Age 43 Years, Occu:Service
In the office of Assistant
Consolidation Officer, Kalamnuri
Dist. Parbhani PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
[Copy to be served on the Govt.
Pleader, High Court, Aurangabad]
2] The Director of Land Records and
Settlement Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3] The Deputy Director of Land Records,
Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.
4] The Superintendent,
Land Records, Parbhani. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.S.D.Dhongade, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr.B.V.Virdhe, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
SANGITRAO S.PATIL,JJ.
Date : 26.04.2016
553.2013WP.odt
JUDGMENT: [Per S.S.Shinde, J.]:
1] Heard.
2] This Petition takes exception to the
judgment and order dated 03.02.2012 passed by
the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,
Aurangabad [for short 'MAT'] in Original
Application No.1232/1999, and further seeks
direction to the respondents to regularize
the services of the petitioner in accordance
with the Government Resolution of the Year
2005 with all consequential benefits.
3] The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the MAT erred in
holding that the petitioner has not rendered
10 years continuous service so as to extend
the benefit of the said Government
Resolution. He further submits that the
other similarly situated persons have been
granted benefit, however, the petitioner is
deprived of that benefit which flows from the
553.2013WP.odt
Government Resolution dated 10.03.2005 issued
by the Revenue and Forest Department,
Government of Maharashtra. He further invites
our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Yashwant Arjun
More and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others in Civil Appeal No.4633 of 2007
decided on 11th August, 2011 and submits that,
in the said case the High Court had rejected
Writ Petition, whereas the petitioners
therein approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and in the aforesaid Civil Appeal, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the
respondents to take action for regularization
of the services of the appellants therein in
accordance with the Government Resolution
dated 10th March, 2005. He further invites
our attention to the judgment delivered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sandhya Vs. State of Maharashtra and others
and submits that in that case also the MAT
553.2013WP.odt
and High Court refused to grant relief to the
petitioner therein on the ground the
petitioner was not in the employment on the
date when the Government Resolution dated 10th
March, 2005 came into force. However, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and
directed the respondents to regularize the
services of the petitioner therein. He
further invites our attention to the
unreported judgment of this Court in the case
of The State of Maharashtra & others Vs.
Dnyanoba s/o. Gopalrao Sable in Writ Petition
No.3024 of 2012, decided on 26th June, 2015
and submits that, in respect of the similarly
situated persons this Court has extended
benefit of the said Government Resolution to
the petitioners therein and directed the
State to regularize the services of the
respondent. Therefore, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that the
Petition deserves to be allowed.
553.2013WP.odt
4] On the other hand, the learned AGP
appearing for the respondent - State relying
upon the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf
of respondent nos.1 to 4 submits that the
petitioner worked as unpaid candidate from
16.08.1988 to 31.03.1993 in the office of
Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Jintur.
Thereafter, he remained absent from
01.04.1993 to September, 1999 in the
Department. As per the order of the MAT, he
joined the services in the month of
September, 1999, in the office of the Taluka
Inspector of Land Records, Jintur.
Thereafter, he again remained absent from
29.10.2005 to 20.07.2007 and also from
12.06.2008 onwards. The learned AGP submits
that the present petitioner has not completed
the required period of 10 years in the
Department as per the Government Resolutions
dated 21st October, 1995, 22nd October, 1996,
and as per the order passed by the Hon'ble
553.2013WP.odt
Supreme Court of India. He further submits
that the petitioner never served continuously
for more than 5 years in the Department, and
therefore, he is not eligible as per the
Government Resolutions dated 21st October,
1995, 22nd October, 1996 and 10th March, 2005,
issued by the Revenue and Forest Department,
Government of Maharashtra. He, therefore,
submits that the Petition may be rejected.
5] We have considered the submissions
of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, and the learned AGP appearing for
the respondent - State. With their able
assistance, perused the grounds taken in the
Petition, annexures thereto, reply filed by
respondent nos. 1 to 4 and in particular, the
contents of the Government Resolution dated
10th March, 2005, issued by the Revenue and
Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai. The MAT has considered
the Government Resolution dated 10th March,
553.2013WP.odt
2005 and also the length of services rendered
by the petitioner. The MAT, on the basis of
the material placed on record, reached the
conclusion that the petitioner has not
rendered continuous service for 10 years or
more, and therefore, the benefit of the said
Government Resolution cannot be given to the
petitioner.
6] In the affidavit-in-reply filed by
respondent nos. 1 to 4 in para 4 the factual
details about the actual service rendered by
the petitioner has been stated. We have
carefully perused the judgment of the MAT and
in our opinion the findings recorded by the
MAT that the petitioner has not worked for
10 years or more continuously, are in
consonance with the material placed on
record.
7] As already observed, the benefit of
the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 10th
553.2013WP.odt
March, 2005 can only be extended when 10
years or more service has been continuously
rendered. The reliance placed by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner in the
case of Yashwant Arjun More and others Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others [supra] is of
no avail to the petitioner inasmuch as the
petitioners therein had completed more than
10 years engagement, as has been observed in
the second paragraph at page 6 of the
judgment. In the case of Sandhya Vs. State
of Maharashtra and others [supra], the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered
altogether different fact situation inasmuch
as in the facts of that case it was alleged
by the respondent therein that on the date of
issuance of Government Resolution dated 10th
March, 2005, the appellant therein was not
working on the said date, and therefore, was
not entitled for regularization. The said
contention came to be repelled by the Hon'ble
553.2013WP.odt
Supreme Court and the petitioner therein was
ordered to be regularized in the service. An
issue of rendering service for 10 years or
more was not involved in that case. In the
case of State of Maharashtra and others Vs.
Dnyanoba s/o. Gopalrao Sable [supra], the
Division Bench of this Court considered
altogether different factual aspect inasmuch
as the respondent therein admittedly
completed more than 10 years service and
therefore he was held to be entitled for the
benefits provided in the Government
Resolution dated 10th March, 2005.
8] In the light of the discussion in
foregoing paragraphs, it clearly emerges that
the petitioner has not rendered service
continuously for 10 years or more as required
under the Government Resolution dated 10th
March, 2005, so as to avail of the benefit of
the said Government Resolution for
regularizing his services. The findings
553.2013WP.odt
recorded by the MAT on appreciation of the
documents on record about the actual service
rendered by the petitioner with the
respondent is in consonance with the
documents placed on record, there is no
perversity as such. Therefore, in our
considered view, the Petition deserves no
consideration. Hence the same stands
rejected. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S.PATIL] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
