Bombay High Court
The Commissioner Animal ... vs Smt Shobhabai Pandurang Shirode on 7 December, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11452 OF 2016
1. The Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry Maharashtra
State Central Building, Pune, 400 001.
2. Divisional Additional Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry,
Nashik Division, Gangapur Road,
Nashik - 2.
3. District Deputy Commissioner for
Animal Husbandry,
Nagar-Pune Road, Near Central
Bus Stand, Ahmednagar.
4. Regional Manager,
Walumata Prakshetra, Kopargaon,
Po. Tq. Kopargaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Petitioners.
Versus
Ranganath Pahadu Solanke,
Age. 63 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o. At Walumata Prakashetra,
Kopargaon, Karmachari Vasahat,
khs/DEC.2016/11452-d
::: Uploaded on - 09/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2016 00:48:36 :::
2
Station Road, Kopargaon,
Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondent.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11453 OF 2016
1. The Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry Maharashtra
State Central Building, Pune, 400 001.
2.
Divisional Additional Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry,
Nashik Division, Gangapur Road,
Nashik - 2.
3. District Deputy Commissioner for
Animal Husbandry,
Nagar-Pune Road, Near Central
Bus Stand, Ahmednagar.
4. Regional Manager,
Walumata Prakshetra, Kopargaon,
Po. Tq. Kopargaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Petitioners.
Versus
Smt. Shobhabai Pandurang Shirode,
Age. 53 years, Occ. Service,
khs/DEC.2016/11452-d
R/o. At Walumata Prakashetra,
Kopargaon, Karmachari Vasahat,
Station Road, Kopargaon,
Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondent.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11454 OF 2016
1. The Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry Maharashtra
State Central Building, Pune, 400 001.
2. Divisional Additional Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry,
Nashik Division, Gangapur Road,
Nashik - 2.
3. District Deputy Commissioner for
Animal Husbandry,
Nagar-Pune Road, Near Central
Bus Stand, Ahmednagar.
4. Regional Manager,
Walumata Prakshetra, Kopargaon,
Po. Tq. Kopargaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Petitioners.
Versus
khs/DEC.2016/11452-d
Smt. Anusaya Laxman Thombare,
Age. 57 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o. At Walumata Prakashetra,
Kopargaon, Karmachari Vasahat,
Station Road, Kopargaon,
Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondent.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11455 OF 2016
1. The Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry Maharashtra
State Central Building, Pune, 400 001.
2. Divisional Additional Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry,
Nashik Division, Gangapur Road,
Nashik - 2.
3. District Deputy Commissioner for
Animal Husbandry,
Nagar-Pune Road, Near Central
Bus Stand, Ahmednagar.
4. Regional Manager,
Walumata Prakshetra, Kopargaon,
Po. Tq. Kopargaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Petitioners.
khs/DEC.2016/11452-d
Versus
Smt. Kokilabai Prabhakar Solanke,
Age. 58 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. At Walumata Prakashetra,
Kopargaon, Karmachari Vasahat,
Station Road, Kopargaon,
Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondent.
ig WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11456 OF 2016
1. The Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry Maharashtra
State Central Building, Pune, 400 001.
2. Divisional Additional Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry,
Nashik Division, Gangapur Road,
Nashik - 2.
3. District Deputy Commissioner for
Animal Husbandry,
Nagar-Pune Road, Near Central
Bus Stand, Ahmednagar.
4. Regional Manager,
Walumata Prakshetra, Kopargaon,
Po. Tq. Kopargaon,
khs/DEC.2016/11452-d
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Petitioners.
Versus
Smt. Vithabai Vasant Kshirsagar,
Age. 57 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. At Walumata Prakashetra,
Kopargaon, Karmachari Vasahat,
Station Road, Kopargaon,
Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondent.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11457 OF 2016
1. The Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry Maharashtra
State Central Building, Pune, 400 001.
2. Divisional Additional Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry,
Nashik Division, Gangapur Road,
Nashik - 2.
3. District Deputy Commissioner for
Animal Husbandry,
Nagar-Pune Road, Near Central
Bus Stand, Ahmednagar.
khs/DEC.2016/11452-d
4. Regional Manager,
Walumata Prakshetra, Kopargaon,
Po. Tq. Kopargaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Petitioners.
Versus
Ambadas Veduji Bhujade,
Age. 59 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o. At Walumata Prakashetra,
Kopargaon, Karmachari Vasahat,
Station Road, Kopargaon,
Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondent.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11458 OF 2016
1. The Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry Maharashtra
State Central Building, Pune, 400 001.
2. Divisional Additional Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry,
Nashik Division, Gangapur Road,
Nashik - 2.
3. District Deputy Commissioner for
Animal Husbandry,
Nagar-Pune Road, Near Central
khs/DEC.2016/11452-d
Bus Stand, Ahmednagar.
4. Regional Manager,
Walumata Prakshetra, Kopargaon,
Po. Tq. Kopargaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Petitioners.
Versus
Smt. Tarabai Devram Dhangare,
Age. 54 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. At Walumata Prakashetra,
Kopargaon, Karmachari Vasahat,
Station Road, Kopargaon,
Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondent.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11459 OF 2016
1. The Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry Maharashtra
State Central Building, Pune, 400 001.
2. Divisional Additional Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry,
Nashik Division, Gangapur Road,
Nashik - 2.
3. District Deputy Commissioner for
khs/DEC.2016/11452-d
Animal Husbandry,
Nagar-Pune Road, Near Central
Bus Stand, Ahmednagar.
4. Regional Manager,
Walumata Prakshetra, Kopargaon,
Po. Tq. Kopargaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Petitioners.
Versus
Madhukar Kondiram Langote,
Age. 58 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o. At Walumata Prakashetra,
Kopargaon, Karmachari Vasahat,
Station Road, Kopargaon,
Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondent.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11460 OF 2016
1. The Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry Maharashtra
State Central Building, Pune, 400 001.
2. Divisional Additional Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry,
Nashik Division, Gangapur Road,
Nashik - 2.
khs/DEC.2016/11452-d
3. District Deputy Commissioner for
Animal Husbandry,
Nagar-Pune Road, Near Central
Bus Stand, Ahmednagar.
4. Regional Manager,
Walumata Prakshetra, Kopargaon,
Po. Tq. Kopargaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Petitioners.
Versus
Drupadabai Baburao Nikam,
Age. 54 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. At Walumata Prakashetra,
Kopargaon, Karmachari Vasahat,
Station Road, Kopargaon,
Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondent.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11461 OF 2016
1. The Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry Maharashtra
State Central Building, Pune, 400 001.
2. Divisional Additional Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry,
Nashik Division, Gangapur Road,
khs/DEC.2016/11452-d
Nashik - 2.
3. District Deputy Commissioner for
Animal Husbandry,
Nagar-Pune Road, Near Central
Bus Stand, Ahmednagar.
4. Regional Manager,
Walumata Prakshetra, Kopargaon,
Po. Tq. Kopargaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
ig ...Petitioners.
Versus
Baburao Tulshiram Nikam,
Age. 59 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o. At Walumata Prakashetra,
Kopargaon, Karmachari Vasahat,
Station Road, Kopargaon,
Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondent.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11462 OF 2016
1. The Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry Maharashtra
State Central Building, Pune, 400 001.
2. Divisional Additional Commissioner,
khs/DEC.2016/11452-d
Animal Husbandry,
Nashik Division, Gangapur Road,
Nashik - 2.
3. District Deputy Commissioner for
Animal Husbandry,
Nagar-Pune Road, Near Central
Bus Stand, Ahmednagar.
4. Regional Manager,
Walumata Prakshetra, Kopargaon,
Po. Tq. Kopargaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Petitioners.
Versus
Smt. Kalabai Ambadas Bhujade,
Age. 57 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o. At Walumata Prakashetra,
Kopargaon, Karmachari Vasahat,
Station Road, Kopargaon,
Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondent.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11463 OF 2016
1. The Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry Maharashtra
State Central Building, Pune, 400 001.
khs/DEC.2016/11452-d
2. Divisional Additional Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry,
Nashik Division, Gangapur Road,
Nashik - 2.
3. District Deputy Commissioner for
Animal Husbandry,
Nagar-Pune Road, Near Central
Bus Stand, Ahmednagar.
4. Regional Manager,
Walumata Prakshetra, Kopargaon,
Po. Tq. Kopargaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Petitioners.
Versus
Bhagat Aabu Gaikwad,
Age. 61 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o. At Walumata Prakashetra,
Kopargaon, Karmachari Vasahat,
Station Road, Kopargaon,
Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondent.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11464 OF 2016
1. The Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry Maharashtra
khs/DEC.2016/11452-d
State Central Building, Pune, 400 001.
2. Divisional Additional Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry,
Nashik Division, Gangapur Road,
Nashik - 2.
3. District Deputy Commissioner for
Animal Husbandry,
Nagar-Pune Road, Near Central
Bus Stand, Ahmednagar.
4. Regional Manager,
Walumata Prakshetra, Kopargaon,
Po. Tq. Kopargaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Petitioners.
Versus
Smt. Kantabai Bhanudas Waje,
Age. 57 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o. At Walumata Prakashetra,
Kopargaon, Karmachari Vasahat,
Station Road, Kopargaon,
Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondent.
Mr.N.T.Bhagat, AGP for the petitioners.
Mr.P.V.Barde, Advocate for the respondents.
khs/DEC.2016/11452-d
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 07/12/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner/establishment in all these matters is aggrieved
by the judgment and order dated 22/07/2016 delivered by the
Industrial Court, Ahmednagar vide which Complaint (ULP)
Nos.86/2013 to 95/2013 and 97/2013 to 99/2013 have been allowed.
Complaint (ULP) Nos. 85 /2013 and 96/2013 have been rejected.
Consequentially, the benefits of the GR dated 08/06/1995 are
granted to these succeeding complainants (Respondents herein).
3. The petitions have been filed only with regard to those
complaints, which have been allowed by the Industrial Court.
4. In all these petitions, the respondents/workmen, who are
identically placed, are all working as attendants with the petitioner
department. None of them has passed the 8 th standard examination
with English as a main subject.
khs/DEC.2016/11452-d
5. All these respondents had approached the Industrial Court
claiming the benefits of the Time Bound Promotion Scheme, which
was introduced by the GR dated 08/06/1995. Each of them is one
stage below the post of a "Dresser" Class-IV in the Animal Husbandry
Department. The Industrial Court allowed their complaints holding
that they all are entitled to the promotional scale as there is no
clause in the scheme prescribing eligibility to claim the higher scale.
6. Upon considering the strenuous submissions of the learned
Advocates and the vehement submissions of Mr.Barde on behalf of
the respondents/employees, I find that the dispute which calls for
adjudication is as to whether these respondents are entitled to claim
the benefits of the Time Bound Promotion Scheme as per the GR
dated 08/06/1995.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dwijen Chandra Sarkar and another
Vs. Union of India and another, [AIR 1999 SC 598], while dealing with
the issue of time bound promotion and acquiring emoluments
without actual promotions, has observed in paragraph Nos.11, 12
and 13 as under :-
"11. However, the position in regard to 'time-bound' promotions in
different. Where there are a large number of employees in any
khs/DEC.2016/11452-d
department and where the employees are not likely to get their
comparatively low-position in the seniority list, Government has
found it necessary that, in order to remove frustration, the
employees are to be given a higher grade in terms of
employments - while retaining them in the same category. This
is what is generally known as the time bound promotion. Such a
time-bound promotion does not affect the normal seniority of
those higher up.
12. If that be the true purpose of a time-bound promotion which
is meant (to) relieve frustration on account of stagnation, it
cannot be said that the government wanted to deprive the
appellants who were brought into the P & T Department in
public interest - of the benefit of a higher grade. The frustration
on account of stagnation is a common factor not only of those
already in the P & T Department but also of those who are
administratively transferred by Government from the
Rehabilitation Department to the P & T Department. The
Government, while imposing an eligibility condition of 16 years
service in the grade for being entitled to time-bound promotion, is
not intending to benefit only one section of employees in the
category and deny it to another section of employees in the
same category. The common factor for all these employees is
that they have remained in the same grade for 16 years without
promotions. The said period is a term of eligibility for obtaining a
financial benefit of higher grade.
13. It the appellants are entitled to the time-bound promotion by
counting service prior to joining the P & T Department, the next
question is whether treating them as eligible for time-bound
khs/DEC.2016/11452-d
promotion will conflict with the condition imposed in their
transfer order, namely that these will not count their service for
seniority purposes in the P & T Department."
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court has therefore ruled that in such
schemes, which are introduced taking into account that the
employees are not likely to get their promotion in the near future
because of their comparatively low position in the seniority list,
higher grade in terms of emoluments are made available to such
employees while retaining them in the same category. They are not
actually promoted but are given higher pay scales as if like they have
been promoted.
9. With regard to the newly introduced Modified Assured Career
Progression Scheme (MACPS), the learned Division Bench of this
Court, at its principal seat has delivered an order on 24/06/2016 in
WP Nos.7062/2014 and group of matters (The State of Maharashtra
and others Vs. Dattatraya Mehta and others) and has observed in
paragraph No.10 as under :-
"10. One of the notorious features of Government service is that
several employees, though eligible and ever willing to promoted,
do not actually secure such promotions, sometimes, during the
entire tenure of their service. This stagnation, naturally leads to
frustration. The State has consequently adopted schemes for
khs/DEC.2016/11452-d
redressal of such situation arising out of lack of sufficient
promotional avenues and the consequent stagnation. Broadly,
such schemes to not contemplate actual promotions to the next
higher post, but by way of consolation, award the pay-scale of
the promotional posts, generally, upon an employees stagnating
in a particular post for twelve years or twenty four years
respectively. Such schemes, were earlier referred to as Time
Bound Promotion Schemes and are now referred to as Assured
Career Progression Schemes. The MACP Scheme, with which,
we are presently concerned was formulated by the State
Government vide G.R. Dated 1 April 2010. This G.R. Specifically
states that the scheme will be applicable with retrospective
effect, i.e. from 1 October 2006."
10. Such time bound promotion or assured promotion or MACP
schemes have thus been interpreted as being such schemes by which
those employees who are otherwise eligible and willing to be
promoted, are not successful in actually securing such promotions
considering their level in the seniority list or on account of lack of
sufficient promotional avenues, would be extended monetary benefits
of the promotional post. In order to overcome stagnation in service,
such schemes have been introduced by which, such employees are
given pay scales of the promotional posts by way of a consolation
without actually being promoted to the said post.
khs/DEC.2016/11452-d
11. The communication by the Secretary of the Government,
Agriculture and Co-operation Department dated 10/02/1983 is with
regard to the "Dresser" Class-IV under the Directorate of Animal
Husbandry (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 1982. Rule 2(2) reads
as under :
"1. These rules may be called the Dresser Class IV in the
Directorate of Animal Husbandry (Recruitment) (Amendment)
Rules, 1982.
2. For rule 2 of the Dresser Class IV in the Directorate of Animal
Husbandry (Recruitment) Rules, 1981, the following shall be
substituted, namely :-
1. .....................
"2 - Appointment to the post of Dresser in the Directorate of
Animal Husbandry shall be made by promotion of a suitable
person on the basis of seniority subject to fitness from amongst
the persons holding the posts of Attendant in the Directorate of
Animal Husbandry who have passed 8th Standard Examination
of a Secondary School with English as one of the subjects."
By order of and in the name of Governor of Maharashtra."
12. As such, there is no debate, much less any dispute, that a
person who is to be held eligible for promotion to the post of dresser,
should have passed his 8th standard examination of a secondary
school with English as one of the subjects. None of these
respondents herein have passed their 8th standard with English as a
khs/DEC.2016/11452-d
subject.
13. The entire case of the respondents hinges on the GR dated
08/06/1995 which has been brought to my notice. With the
assistance of the learned Advocates, I have gone through the said
GR. Clause 2 as well as sub clauses A to H (in Marathi v to ;) read
as under :-
v-
gh ;kstuk 1 vkWDVkscj 1984 iklwu vaeykr ;sbZy-
c- ;k ;kstusvarxZr ojhy osruJs.kh feGfo.;klkBh inksUurhlkBh foghr dk;Zi/nrh] ts Ô~Brk] ik++=rk]
vgZrk ijh{kk] foHkkxh; ijh{kk ;k ckchaph iqrZrk dj.ks vko';d vkgs-
d- ljG lsosr izfoÔV >kysY;k vFkok inksUurhus fu;qDr >kysY;k deZpk&;kaP;k ckcrhr ,d osG ;k
;kstusvarxZr 12 oÔkZuarjP;k fu;fer lsosuarj ojhÔ~B osruJs.kh vuqKs; vlsy-
M- T;k deZpk&;kauk ;kiqohZ nksuis{kk tkLr inksUurh feGkY;k vkgsr v'kk deZpk&;kauk ;k
;kstusvarxZr ojhÔ~B osruJs.kh feG.kkj ukgh-
bZ- xV M e/khy deZpk&;kauk ;k ;kstusvarxZr xV d e/;s osruJs.kh Eg.kts :-950&1400 fnyh
rjh R;kaps lsokfuo`Rrhps o; 60 gsp vlsy- ek= xV d e/khy vU; ojhÔ~B inkoj R;kauk
inksUurh feGkY;kl R;kaps lsokfuo`Rrhps o; 58 oÔZ jkghy- xV d e/khy in/kkjdkauk xV c
e/khy jktif=r inkoj inksUurh ns.;klkBh ;k ;kstusvarxZr fopkj dsyk tk.kkj ukgh-
Q- ;k inksUurheqGs tckcnkjh vkf.k drZo; ;kr ok< gksr ulyh rjh fu;fer inksUurhizek.ks osru
fuf'prhr ykHk ns.;kr ;sbZy- ek= osrufuf'prhr feGkysyk gk ykHk R;kl osruJs.khr dk;kZRed
inksUurh feGkY;koj iqUgk ns; gks.kkj ukgh-
u- tj deZpk&;kl fo'ksÔ osru feGr vlsy rj ;k ;kstus[kkyhy inksUurhuarj deZpk&;kal eqG
osruJs.khrhy fo'ksÔ osru vuqKs; jkg.kkj ukgh-
;- ;k ;kstusvarxZr inksUurh feGkyh rjh deZpk&;kaps uko dfuÔ~B ¼eqG½ laoxkZP;k tsÔ~Brk lqphr
khs/DEC.2016/11452-d
jkghy] vkf.k lsokizos'k fu;ekrhy rjrqnhuqlkj miyC/k fjDrrsr ;ksX;osGh fu;fer
inksUurhlkBh ¼Functional Promotion½ R;kpk fopkj dj.;kr ;sbZy] fu;fer
inksUurhl vik= BjysY;k deZpk&;kl ;k ;kstuspk ykHk feG.kkj ukgh- R;kp izek.ks fu;fer
inksUurh ukdkjysY;k deZpk&;kl ns[khy ;k inksUurhpk ykHk feGw 'kd.kkj ukgh- ;k vk/khp
R;kauk ¼In-Site½ inksUurh fnyh vlY;kl eqGP;k inkoj inkoUur dj.;kar ;sbZy] r'kk
vk'k;kps ca/ki= deZpk&;kauk fygwu n~;kos ykxsy] ek++= ns.;kar vkysY;k vkfFkZd ykHkkaph olqyh
dsyh tk.kkj ukgh-"
14.
Clause 2 would indicate that those employees who are
otherwise not eligible to the higher posts, would be treated differently
on the basis of the Annexure annexed to the said GR. However,
clause 2(c) would indicate that only those candidates would be
eligible for the benefits of the time bound promotion scheme, if they
are otherwise eligible (ik=rk] vgZrk ifj{kk). Clause H (;) indicates that the
eligible employee, who has been given the promotional scale under
this scheme without actually being promoted, would be considered
subsequently for actual promotion (functional promotion) as and
when the vacancy arises.
15. In the light of the above, the contention of the petitioner that
these respondents would not be entitled for the promotional scale of a
"Dresser" Class-IV, if they have not passed 8 th standard examination
khs/DEC.2016/11452-d
with English subject, is sustainable. It is apparent from the
impugned judgments that the Industrial Court has failed to apply its
mind to clause 2, 2(c) and 2(;) of the GR dated 08/07/1995, in as
much as, it appears from the impugned judgment that these aspects
were not specifically brought to the notice of the Industrial Court.
16. Considering the above, as it is evident that these respondents
were not eligible to be promoted as "Dressers" considering clause 2(c)
and 2(;), they cannot be held entitled for the promotional scale which
accompanies the post of "Dresser" Class-IV. When these respondents,
under clause 2(;) would not be eligible for being regularly promoted
as and when the opportunity occurs, they cannot be held entitled for
the promotional scale under clause 2(c). Unless the employee is
eligible for promotion as per the eligibility criteria, he cannot be held
entitled for the promotional scale under the Time Bound Promotion
Scheme.
17. Mr.Barde submits that in WP Nos.10687/2014 to 10689/2014,
this Court has directed the State Government to reconsider whether
the 3 employees namely Babulal Tulshiram Nikam, Prabhat Pahadu
Solanke and Madhukar Kondiram Nangote, are entitled for any
benefits of the GR dated 08/06/1995. They have been protected as
khs/DEC.2016/11452-d
against recovery of the money, that has been erroneously paid to
them. He, therefore, prays that this Court may refer the cases of
these respondents to the State Government for consideration or
permit the respondents to make representations considering the fact
that they are also suffering frustration on account of stagnation in
service.
18.
Considering the above, all these petitions are allowed. The
impugned judgments dated 22/07/2016, being perverse and
erroneous, are quashed and set aside in all the above mentioned
complaints. Complaint (ULP) Nos.86/2013 to 95/2013 and 97/2013
to 99/2013 stand dismissed. Rule is discharged.
19. As the respondents desire to make representations to the State
Government, in the event such representations are made, the State
Government would be at liberty to deal with the same in accordance
with their Government Resolution and policies.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/DEC.2016/11452-d
