Bombay High Court
State Of Mah vs Sunanada Basappa Havari on 8 December, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 905.wp.2705.2706.97.con
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2705 OF 1997
1 The State of Maharashtra.
(Through Collector, Osmanabad).
2 Executive Engineer,
Irrigation Division, Osmanabad.
...PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
Sow.Sunanda Basappa Havari,
Age : 22 years, Occupation : Service,
R/o Irrigation Colony, Osmanabad.
...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2706 OF 1997
1 The State of Maharashtra.
(Through Collector, Osmanabad).
2 Executive Engineer,
Irrigation Division, Osmanabad.
...PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
Sow.Shobah Rajendra Gaikwad,
Age : 26 years, Occupation : Service,
R/o Hirabhawan,
before Ambedkar Statute,
Osmanabad.
...RESPONDENT
...
AGP for Petitioner : Shri N.T.Bhagat.
Advocate for Respondents : Shri Parag Shahane h/f Shri Pradeep L.
Shahane
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 00:25:08 :::
*2* 905.wp.2705.2706.97.con
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 08th December, 2016
Oral Judgment :
1 In both these petitions, the same Petitioner has challenged the
judgment and order dated 27.01.1997 by which Complaint (ULP) Nos.414
and 415 of 1990 filed by the Respondents have been allowed and the
Petitioner/ State is directed to grant regularization to the Respondents as
Typists from the date of completion of five years from their initial
employment.
2 By order dated 24.07.1995, after hearing both the sides, these
petitions were admitted and interim relief in terms of prayer clause (D)
was granted. Consequentially, the impugned judgments were stayed.
3 Both the learned Advocates, despite adjournments having
been granted in this matter from July, 2016, are unable to state whether,
the Respondents are in employment or not.
4 Notwithstanding the above, the issue of Mustering Assistants
is no longer res-integra. The cases of Mustering Assistants had reached the
*3* 905.wp.2705.2706.97.con
Honourable Supreme Court. The scheme for considering and regularizing
the Mustering Assistants in employment was prepared by the State
Government by the Government Resolution dated 01.12.1995. The said
Government Resolution was placed before the Honourable Supreme Court
and the same was accepted. Consequent thereto, the State was to consider
the cases of Mustering Assistants strictly as per the Government Resolution
dated 01.12.1995 and take a decision for regularizing the services of
eligible Mustering Assistants.
5 By judgment dated 22.03.1991 in the matter of Subhash
Narayan Ahirrao vs. Deputy Engineer, P.W.D., Sub Divisioin, 1993 FLR
(Vol.66) 353, this Court (Coram : M.F.Saldanha, J.) concluded that the
Mustering Assistants be continued in service. In a subsequent judgment
dated 06.07.1995, this Court (Croam : B.N.Srikrishna, J., as His Lordship
then was), in Manabhau Damu Khairnar and others vs. State of
Maharashtra and others, 1995 (II) CLR 649, proceeded to grant the
benefits to the Mustering Assistants based on the Subhash Ahirrao case
(supra).
6 However, pursuant to the Government Resolution dated
01.12.1995 which was accepted by the Honourable Supreme Court, as is
informed by the learned Advocates, this Court (Coram : A.P. Deshpande,
*4* 905.wp.2705.2706.97.con
J.) in large number of matters in Writ Petition No.847/1996 with
connected matters (State of Maharashtra and others vs. Kakasaheb
Bhausaheb Khandagale and others), concluded in it's judgment dated
18.08.2001 and 30.08.2001 that the cases of the Mustering Assistants
should be considered by the State for absorption in regular service in
accordance with the scheme prepared by the State Government vide
Government Resolution dated 01.12.1995 and the norms laid down in the
Government Resolution dated 21.04.1999.
7 The view taken by this Court (Coram : A.P.Deshpande, J.) in
Kakasaheb Khandagale case (supra) has been consistently followed by this
Court in the subsequent judgments delivered on 15.10.1999 (Coram
J.A.Patil, J.) in Writ Petition No.703/1997 and other connected matters
(Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar vs. Namdeo Natha Pawar) and on 21.09.2000
(Coram : Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J., as His Lordship then was) in the matter
of Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar vs. Daulat Narsingrao
Deshmukh and others, 2001 (2) Mh.L.J. 543.
8 Considering the above, I have no reason to take a different
view. However, I am required to consider the aspect as to whether, the
Respondents are in employment today or not.
*5* 905.wp.2705.2706.97.con
9 In the light of the above, both these Writ Petitions are partly
allowed. The judgment of the Industrial Court dated 27.01.1997 in
Complaint (ULP) Nos.414 and 415 of 1990 stands modified as under:-
(a) Declaration of ULP in paragraph 16(II) of the impugned
judgment is quashed and set aside.
(b) Paragraph 16(III) is modified by directing the Petitioner/
State to consider the cases of the Respondents in the light of
the Government Resolution dated 01.12.1995 and the norms
settled by the Government Resolution dated 21.04.1999 for
granting regularization to these Respondents.
(c) The direction in clause (b) above shall be subject to the
condition that the Respondents should be in employment as
on date and during the pendency of these proceedings.
(d) In the event, these Respondents are not in employment
during the pendency of these proceedings, the direction in
clause (b) above would be inoperable and the impugned
judgment of the Industrial Court granting benefits of
regularization in paragraph 16(III) would, therefore, stand
quashed and set aside.
(e) In the event, the Respondents are in employment during the
pendency of these proceedings and have superannuated as on
*6* 905.wp.2705.2706.97.con
date, their cases shall be considered by the Petitioner under
the Government Resolutions dated 01.12.1995 and
21.04.1999 to the extent of granting monetary and retiral
benefits, if entitled.
10 Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
kps
ig (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
