Bombay High Court
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation ... vs Vasant Omkar Sushir on 16 December, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.12153 OF 2016
Narendra S/o Gopal Kale,
Age-49 years, Occu-Service as Driver,
with Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon
Resident of : 353/1, Jaykisan Wadi,
Jalgaon, Tq. And Dist.Jalgaon ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation,
Jalgaon, Administrative 17th Floor Building,
Nehru Chowk, Navi Peth, Jalgaon,
Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11342 OF 2016
Bharat Ananda Raising,
Age : 40 years, Occ. : Service as Driver
with Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon,
R/o. Valmik Nagar, Gharkul,
House No. 78, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation,
Jalgaon, Administrative 17th Floor Building,
Nehru Chowk, Navi Peth, Jalgaon,
Tq. And District Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11343 OF 2016
Narayan Gangaram Kale,
Age : 51 years, Occ. : Service as Driver
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
with Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon,
R/o. 471 Vitthal Peth, Badam Galli, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation,
Jalgaon, Administrative 17th Floor Building,
Nehru Chowk, Navi Peth, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11344 OF 2016
Lani Martin Joseph,
Age : 48 years, Occ. : Service as Driver
with Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon,
R/o. Opp. Bafna Goshala,
Ajintha Road, Kusumba, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation,
Jalgaon, Administrative 17th Floor Building,
Nehru Chowk, Navi Peth, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11345 OF 2016
Sanjay Vasantrao Mahajan,
Age : 46 years, Occ. : Service as Driver
with Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon,
R/o. Gurudatta Colony,
Pimprala, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation,
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Jalgaon, Administrative 17th Floor Building,
Nehru Chowk, Navi Peth, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11346 OF 2016
Dnyaneshwar Ragho Marathe,
Age : 44 years, Occ. : Service as Driver
with Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon,
R/o. Shirsholi, Pr. BO Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation,
Jalgaon, Administrative 17th Floor Building,
Nehru Chowk, Navi Peth, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11347 OF 2016
Prashant Vivek Kankhare,
Age : 44 years, Occ. : Service as Driver
with Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon,
R/o. Plot No. 9, Jivanmoti Society,
Opposite of Gunjan Mangal Karyalay,
Jalgaon, Taluka and District Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation,
Jalgaon, Administrative 17th Floor Building,
Nehru Chowk, Navi Peth, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11348 OF 2016
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Dattatraya Sadashiv Sapkale,
Age : 47 years, Occ. : Service as Driver
with Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon,
R/o. Khed Road, Gitainagar,
Gut No. 63/1, House No. 7, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation,
Jalgaon, Administrative 17th Floor Building,
Nehru Chowk, Navi Peth, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ig ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11349 OF 2016
Vijay Dashrath Sonawane,
Age : 48 years, Occ. : Service as Driver
with Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon,
R/o. Building No. 39,
General Mill, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation,
Jalgaon, Administrative 17th Floor Building,
Nehru Chowk, Navi Peth, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11350 OF 2016
Santosh Shantaram Nikumbh,
Age : 47 years, Occ. : Service as Driver
with Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon,
R/o. Behind Kusumba Sai Nagar,
Plot No. 84, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER.
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Versus
Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation,
Jalgaon, Administrative 17th Floor Building,
Nehru Chowk, Navi Peth, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11351 OF 2016
Suresh Anna Patil,
Age : 49 years, Occ. : Service as Driver
with Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon,
R/o. Shriram Smarth Colony,
Gat No. 347/1, Plot No. 6,
Pimprala, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation,
Jalgaon, Administrative 17th Floor Building,
Nehru Chowk, Navi Peth, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11352 OF 2016
Rahimoddin Shaikh Mehboob,
Age : 52 years, Occ. : Service as Driver
with Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon,
R/o. Plot No. 11, Iqbal Colony,
Mehrun Shivar, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation,
Jalgaon, Administrative 17th Floor Building,
Nehru Chowk, Navi Peth, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon,
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Through its Commissioner. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11353 OF 2016
Prakash Rangrao Pawar,
Age : 50 years, Occ. : Service as Driver
with Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon,
R/o. Near Commissioner's Bunglow,
Shivaji Nagar Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation,
Jalgaon, Administrative 17th Floor Building,
Nehru Chowk, Navi Peth, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11354 OF 2016
Vijay Pandharinath Wagh,
Age : 42 years, Occ. : Service as Driver
with Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon,
R/o. Plot No. 1/1, Pimprala Shivar,
Jilha Bank Colony, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation,
Jalgaon, Administrative 17th Floor Building,
Nehru Chowk, Navi Peth, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11355 OF 2016
Sharad Gambhir Sonawane,
Age : 42 years, Occ. : Service as Driver
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
with Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon,
R/o. Plot No. 5, Shivshankar Nagar,
Asoda Road, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation,
Jalgaon, Administrative 17th Floor Building,
Nehru Chowk, Navi Peth, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...RESPONDENT.
ig WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11500 OF 2016
Dilip Eknath Kolhe,
Age : 47 years, Occ. : Service as Driver
with Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon,
R/o. Plot No. 26, Sarswati Nagar,
Kasamwadi, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation,
Jalgaon, Administrative 17th Floor Building,
Nehru Chowk, Navi Peth, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11514 OF 2016
Pradip Bhika Ingale,
Age : 58 years, Occ. : Service as Driver
with Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon,
R/o. Plot No. 12, Wagh Nagar,
Near Vivekanand School, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation,
Jalgaon, Administrative 17th Floor Building,
Nehru Chowk, Navi Peth, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11515 OF 2016
Rajendra Atmaram Koli,
Age : 40 years, Occ. : Service as Driver
with Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon,
R/o. Walmik Nagar, Gharkul, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon.
ig ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation,
Jalgaon, Administrative 17th Floor Building,
Nehru Chowk, Navi Peth, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12163 OF 2016
Vasant Omkar Sushir,
Age : 44 years, Occ. : Service as Driver
with Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon,
R/o. 4, Tuljai Nagar, Kusumba, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation,
Jalgaon, Administrative 17th Floor Building,
Nehru Chowk, Navi Peth, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12195 OF 2016
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Karimoddin Bashir Pinjari,
Age : 49 years, Occ. : Service as Driver
with Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon,
R/o. Bilal Chowk,
Naya Tambapura,
Jalgaon, Taluka and
District Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation,
Jalgaon, Administrative 17th Floor Building,
Nehru Chowk, Navi Peth, Jalgaon,
Taluka and District Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12428 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Lani Martin Joseph,
Age : 48 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Opp. Bafana Goshala,
Ajintha Road, Kusumba City,
Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12429 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Gokul Gangaram Galphade,
Age : 49 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Wagh Nagar Stop,
Jalgaon City,
Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12430 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Narayan Shankar Chandelkar,
Age : -- years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Juna Khedi Road, Shankarrao Nagar,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12431 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Prakash Rangrao Pawar,
Age : 50 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Near Commissioner's Bungalow,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12432 OF 2016
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Rahimoddin Shaikh Mehboob,
Age : 52 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Plot No. 11, Iqbal Colony,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
ig WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12433 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Gajanan Prabhakar Sonar,
Age : 47 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Plot No. 46, Sambhaji Nagar,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12434 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Vijay Pandharinath Wagh,
Age : 42 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Plot No. 1/1,
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Pimprala Shivar,
Jilha Bank Colony,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12435 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Nitin Bansi Bhalerao,
Age : 38 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Namdev Nagar,
Indraprastha Nagar,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12436 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Dilip Eknath Kolhe,
Age : 50 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Plot No. 26/1,
Saraswati Nagar,
Kasamwadi, Jalgaon
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12437 OF 2016
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Anil Ramdas Koli,
Age : 42 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Valmik Nagar, House No. 46,
M.N.P. Gharkul,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
ig WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12438 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Riyaz Ali Razzak Ali,
Age : 42 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. 24, Shivaji Nagar,
Near Shetaki Sangh Godown,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12439 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building, Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Subhash Dhondu Bediskar,
Age : -- years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Joshiwada, Mehrun,
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Opp. Ajay Kirana,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12440 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Pradip Bhika Ingale,
Age : 54 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Plot No. 12, Wagh Nagar,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12441 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Akil Shafi Bagwan,
Age : 46 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. House No. 295, Joshi Peth,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12442 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Versus
Suresh Dattatray Patil,
Age : 49 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Plot No. 5, Dandekar Nagar,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12443 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ig ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Prabhakar Kautik Sonwane,
Age : 49 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Varad, Tq. : Dharangaon,
Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12444 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Shivcharan Gaurishankar Pande,
Age : 52 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Opp. Shahu Nagar,
Police Chowki,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12445 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Kishor Vasant Patil,
Age : 39 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Gendalal Mill, Building No. 18,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12446 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Subhash Damu Sonawane,
Age : 48 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Nandra,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12447 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Rajesh Fattesingh Dhivgav,
Age : 44 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Valmik Nagar, Jamner Road,
Bhusawal,
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Tq. : Bhusawal, Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12448 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Rajaram Amarsing Patil,
Age : 53 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Kusgaon, Tq. : Yawal,
Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12449 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Karimoddin Basir Pinjari,
Age : 49 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Bilal Chowk,
Naya Tambapura,
Jalgaon City,
Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12450 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Ravindra Govinda Patil,
Age : 56 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Patil Wada, Asoda,
Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12451 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Salim Khan Samsher Khan,
Age : 50 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Shivaji Nagar,
Kranti Chowk,
Jalgaon City,
Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12452 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Sharad Gambhir Sonwane,
Age : 42 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Plot No. 5,
Shiv Shankar Nagar, Asoda Road,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12453 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Dilip Dagadu Kankhare,
Age : 41 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Plot No. 37,
Police Housing Society,
Avane Shivar, Jalgaon City,
Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12454 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Vivekanand Ramesh Kothavade,
Age : 41 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Plot No. 20, Ashababa Nagar,
Jalgaon City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12455 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Versus
Sanjay Narayan Marathe (Chavan),
Age : 43 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. 347, Shivaji Nagar,
Jalgaon City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12456 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Suresh Laxman Patil,
Age : 48 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Wagh Nagar, Vishal Colony,
Plot No. 30,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12457 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Raju Ganpat Mahajan,
Age : 47 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Mayur Housing Society, Pimprala
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12458 OF 2016
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Mahesh Nanasaheb Thorat,
Age : 41 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Mayur Housing Society,
Plot No. 37,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon.
ig ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12459 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Sanjay Bhagwat Patil,
Age : 48 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Plot No. 30, Sai Nagar,
Nimkhedi Shivar,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12460 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Dnyaneshwar Ragho Marathe,
Age : 44 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Shirsoli, Pr. Bo.,
Jalgaon City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12461 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ig ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Iqbal Shaikh Husanoddin,
Age : 48 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Shivaji Nagar,
Jalgaon City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12462 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Sayyad Sajid Ali Sayyad Abrd Ali,
Age : 41 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Bhavani Peth, Islampura,
Jalgaon City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12463 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Yusuf Yakub Patel,
Age : 40 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Shirsoli Naka, Ramnagar,
Jalgaon City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12464 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Govind Baban Sonawane,
Age : 45 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Shani Peth,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12465 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Kailas Bansilal Devraj,
Age : 42 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Shri Nathji Bhuvan,
Ganesh Colony,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12466 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Prakash Patingrao Kumawat,
Age : 43 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Gopalpura, Police Colony,
Shrikushna Colony, Avane Shivar,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12467 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Anil Bhika Bari,
Age : 38 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Shirsoli, Jalgaon City,
Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12468 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Arun Prataprao Solunkhe,
Age : 46 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Vitthal Peth, Teli Chowk,
Jalgaon City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12469 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Santosh Shantaram Nikumbh,
Age : 47 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Plot No. 84, Sai Nagar,
Behind Kusumba,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12470 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Sahankar Nattu Sapkale,
Age : 42 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Valmik Nagar, Jalgaon City,
Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12471 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building, Nehru Chowk,
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Devidas Baburao Dusane,
Age : 50 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Ayodhya Nagar, Laxmi Park,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12472 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Santosh Pandit Tayade,
Age : 46 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Vitthal Peth,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12473 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Madhukar Sadashiv Pol,
Age : 50 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. 124, Shivaji Nagar,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12474 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Suresh Bhagwat Jagtap,
Age : 41 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Bhoite Nagar,
Gauri Apartment,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12475 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Talat Mehmood Nawaj Mohammad,
Age : 57 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. 88, Baliram Peth, Jalgaon City,
Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12476 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Dattatray Sadashiv Sapkale,
Age : 46 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Juna Khedi Road, Gitainagar,
Gat No. 63/1, H 7, Jalgaon,
Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12477 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Narendra Dayaram Kate,
Age : 44 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Plot No. 16, Bhushan Colony,
Behind M. J. College,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12478 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Mohd. Faik Shaikh Bismilla Bagwan,
Age : 50 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Tambapura, Jalgaon City,
Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12479 OF 2016
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Shaikh Jamil Shaikh Gani,
Age : 45 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Shahu Nagar, Near Water tank,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12480 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Rajendra Atmaram Koli,
Age : 40 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Valmik Nagar, Gharkul,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12481 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Dattatray Keshavrao Marathe,
Age : -- years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Gurudatta Colony,
Girana Pumping Road,
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12482 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Santosh Budho Saindane,
Age : 48 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Plot No. 31, Kanchan Nagar,
Near Pirbaba Darga,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12483 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Vijay Dasharath Sonawane,
Age : 43 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Building No. 39, Gendalal Mill,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12484 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building, Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Versus
Prashant Vivek Kankhare,
Age : 44 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Plot No. 9, Jivanmoti Society,
Opp. Of Gunjan Mangal Karyalaya,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12485 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Ashok Asman Sonawane,
Age : 54 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Gendalal Mill,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12486 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Dilip Lotu Rane,
Age : 52 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Kolipeth Bhoi Wada,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12487 OF 2016
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Sharad Hiraman Sonwane,
Age : 39 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Dapora,
Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
ig WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12488 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Dilip Rajjan Dandhore,
Age : 44 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Bhangi Mohalla,
Jamner Road, Bhusawal,
Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12489 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Ratan Shivram Pawar,
Age : 51 years, Occ. : Service,
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
R/o. Vavadada,
Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12490 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Suresh Pandharinath Bari,
Age : 49 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Shirsoli,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12491 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Ravindra Eknath Parvathe,
Age : 37 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Plot No. 29, Dwaraka Nagar,
Near Jamuna Nagar,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12492 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Jamnadas Shamdas Kharare,
Age : 42 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. 15 Bangla, Varangaon Road,
Near Nirmal Nursary, Bhusawal,
Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12493 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Ravindra Pundalik Sapkale,
Age : 46 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Plot No. 193, Adarsh Nagar,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12494 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Narendra Gopal Kale,
Age : 49 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. 353/1, Jay Kisanwadi,
Jalgaon City,
Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12495 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Vijay Bhila Madane,
Age : 46 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Plot No. 24/26, Adarsh Nagar,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12496 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Dilip Rama Baviskar,
Age : 44 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Dandekar Nagar, Pimprala,
Jalgaon City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12497 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Bharat Ananda Raising,
Age : 40 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Housing No. 78,
Valmik Nagar, Gurukul,
Jalgaon City,
Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12498 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Narayan Gangaram Kale,
Age : 51 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. 471, Vithal Peth,
Badam Galli,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12499 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Ravindra Tryambak Kolhe,
Age : 48 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Near Ram Mandir, Asoda,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12500 OF 2016
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Abrar Sattar Pinjari,
Age : 38 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Baliram Peth,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
ig WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12501 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Sanjay Vasantrao Mahajan,
Age : 46 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Gurudatta Colony, Pimprala,
Jalgaon, City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12502 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Vasant Omkar Sushir,
Age : 44 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. 4, Tuljai Nagar, Kusumba,
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Jalgaon City,
Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12503 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Nandkishor Ashok Khadke,
Age : 42 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. 155, Vithal Peth, Jalgaon City,
Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12504 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Nilkanth Namdeo Patil,
Age : 43 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Dahigaon, Tq. : Pachora,
Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12505 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Versus
Jayant Natthu Kolhe,
Age : 48 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Ram Peth, Kolhe Wada,
Old Jalgaon City,
Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12506 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Suresh Anna Patil,
Age : 49 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Gat No. 347/1,
Plot No. 6, Pimprala,
Shriram Samarth Colony,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12507 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Nilkanth Atmaram Tayade,
Age : 38 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Ramanand Nagar,
City, Tq & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12508 OF 2016
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Administrative Building,
Nehru Chowk,
Navali Peth, Jalgaon,
Through its Commissioner. ...PETITIONER.
Versus
Ashok Mangal Sarvan,
Age : 46 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Shani Peth, Gurunanak Nagar,
Mehtar Colony,
City, Tq. & Dist. : Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT.
Mr.V.D.Sapkal, Advocate for the petitioners/drivers.
Mrs.Chaitali Choudhary, Advocate for the respondent/Corporation.
Mr.Girish Nagori, Advocate for the respondents/drivers in WP
Nos.12428/2016 to 12508/2016.
Mr.M.T.Bhagat, AGP for the respondent/State.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 16/12/2016
ORAL JUDGMENTS :
1. Rule in all these petitions. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. In all these writ petitions, one group of petitions have been filed
by 20 drivers working with the Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation.
The other group of petitions have been filed by the same Municipal
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Corporation against each of the 81 drivers who have succeeded before
the Industrial Court in their ULP complaints.
3. There is no dispute that the Industrial Court, Jalgaon has
delivered identical judgments in the individual complaints filed by
these drivers u/s 28(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade
Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
(hereinafter referred to as the State Act). There is no dispute that
these drivers as well as the Municipal Corporation are aggrieved by
the impugned judgments.
4. For the sake of clarity, the petitioners/20 drivers as well as the
respondents/drivers in the petitions filed by the Corporation are
referred to as the litigating drivers and the Corporation is being
referred to as the Corporation/Establishment, in this judgment.
5. Mr.Sapkal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the 1 st
batch of writ petitions filed by the drivers has criticized the impugned
judgment only to the extent of the directions set out under clause (3)
of the impugned judgments. For the sake of brevity and to avoid
repetition, his contentions are summarized as under :-
[a] An advertisement was published on 04/01/1996 by the
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Corporation for filling in certain positions of Drivers.
[b] The requirement was for heavy trucks, road rollers and
excavators. In all 53 positions were available.
[c] The names of these drivers, dates of birth, dates of
appointments, qualifications, number of years put in by them
and their castes/religions are tendered through a ready
reference chart by the Corporation (Marked as Exhibit "X" for
identification).
[d] Barring 5 persons, who were appointed on 15/02/1993 and
who are senior most, rest of the 82 persons have been
appointed subsequently and pursuant to the advertisement.
[e] Each of them were issued with appointment orders.
[f] They have been continued for years together.
[g] They were terminated by the Corporation in 2000 and by the
common judgment dated 28/08/2001, these drivers amongst
the total number of 108 complainants, were all reinstated in
service with continuity till the dates of availability of candidates
from the District Selection Board.
[h] Since they continued for years together and noticed that fresh
hands were been engaged and they were kept as
temporary/daily wagers for years together, they preferred ULP
complaints before the Industrial Court.
[i] Considering the direction in clause (3) of the impugned order,
these drivers would not have raised a grievance, but for the fact
that the Corporation had plans to take undue advantage of the
said direction and disqualify all these 82 drivers who had
approached the Industrial Court on the ground that they have
become age bar.
[j] Appointment Orders issued to junior persons are placed on
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
record from page Nos. 53 to 94.
[k] Orders granting regularization to new faces / fresh hands on
the pretext of clearing the backlog of reservation, are on record
at Page Nos. 95 to 125.
[l] Those drivers, who belong to the reserved categories, have been
overlooked by the Corporation only because they had
approached the Industrial Court.
[m] During the earlier round of litigation before the Labour Court,
the statement of the Corporation was recorded in a paragraph
which is on page no.59 of the first petition paper book, in the
judgment of the Labour Court that the proposals of these
drivers have been forwarded by the Corporation (erstwhile
Municipal Council) for seeking sanction of posts and the said
proposal is still pending.
[n] If the proposal of these drivers is pending from 2001, the
Corporation could not have engaged fresh hands and could not
have regularized junior employees without considering the
rights and claims of these drivers.
[o] There are specific pleadings in paragraph Nos.3, 4, 5 and 7 in
the ULP complaints filed by these drivers before the Industrial
Court categorically stating that they have been working as
drivers for practically two decades, permanency should have
been granted to them under Standing Order 4(C) of the
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act of 1946).
[p] Information received to them under Right to Information Act by
communication dated 02/04/2016 issued by the Information
Officer of the Corporation indicates that 48 posts are today
vacant and available with the Corporation.
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
[q] All these persons who have gathered work experience as
Drivers and having worked continuously in between 17 to 23
years, are in their early or mid fifties and one of them would be
retiring within 2 months.
[r] Reliance is placed upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court dated 26/10/2016 delivered in a large group of
matters in between the State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit
Singh and others.
[s] Paragraph Nos.5, 42 to 58 are relied upon in support of the
contention that these drivers deserve to be granted
permanency, all consequential benefits, parity in wages and
arrears of difference of pay in comparison to comparable
permanent employees of the Corporation.
6. Mrs.Chaudhary, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
Corporation has strenuously criticized the impugned judgments. Her
submissions can be summarized as under :-
[a] The chart supplied to the Court (marked as Exhibit "X" for
identification) would indicate that barring 15, the rest of these
drivers have become age bar and the administration of the
Municipal Corporation does not have the authority to relax the
age condition.
[b] If these disqualified drivers are regularized in employment, the
appropriate authority of the State Government would find fault
with the action of the Corporation.
[c] The Corporation does not have the power to create posts.
[d] The Corporation does not have the authority to regularize these
drivers.
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
[e] A chart supplied to the Court (Marked as Exhibit "Y" for
identification) indicates the pending list of eligible candidates
who are to be appointed on compassionate basis as and when
the vacancy arises by taking into account their seniority and
their qualifications.
[f] Without exhausting this list Exhibit "Y", these drivers in these
petitions cannot be granted regularization and the enlisted
candidates eligible for compassionate appointment, cannot be
kept away from appointments.
[g]
Section 53 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act
permits the Commissioner to appoint temporary employees
only for 6 months.
[h] The State Urban Development Department is the competent
authority to create posts and order regularization of employees.
[i] The horizontal and vertical reservation prescribed by the State
cannot be ignored and the backlog cannot be enlarged by
appointing these drivers on vacant posts.
[j] 33% reservation for women also cannot be ignored.
[k] All these drivers have been granted minimum pay scales as are
prescribed by law and they have also been extended with such
allowances as are payable to them depending upon the various
notifications issued from time to time.
[l] Disparity in the gross salary of permanent drivers in
comparison to these litigating drivers is only on account of the
annual increments that are available to the regular drivers
considering their service conditions.
[m] Drivers on daily wages are not entitled for increments and will
have to work on the minimum pay scale as are provided for by
the law applicable.
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
[n] The Model Standing Orders under the Act of 1946 is not
applicable to these drivers and as such they cannot claim
permanency under Standing Order 4(C).
[o] The Industrial Court could not have declared any ULP against
the Corporation in the above backdrop and the direction to
regularize the services of these drivers is unsustainable.
7. I have considered the extensive submissions of the learned
Advocates which have been reproduced hereinabove.
8. The operative part of the impugned judgments, which are
identical, read as under :-
"1. The complaints are partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that, the respondent has indulged in
unfair labour practice under Items 6 of Schedule - IV of the
MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 and is directed to cease and desist
from continuing the same in future.
3. The respondent is further directed to absorb the complainants
against vacant sanctioned posts phasewise as per their
seniority and availability of such post in future, if the
complainant satisfies all conditions of the candidates required
for recruitment against such posts.
4. No order as to costs."
9. It needs mention that there is no dispute as regards the
following aspects :-
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
[a] Each of these drivers has put in between 17 to 23 years in
employment with the Corporation.
[b] Work as Drivers is available.
[c] These litigating drivers are performing the same work as is
being performed by the regular/permanent drivers.
[d] There is a difference in the wage structure in between the
litigating drivers and the permanent drivers, though the
Corporation strenuously submits that the same is a result of
the annual yearly increments made available to the regular
drivers.
10. The ready reference chart supplied by the Corporation and
which has been marked as Exhibit "X" for identification would
indicate that all these litigating drivers have been appointed when
they were within the permissible age limits and were not said to be
age barred. Their castes/religions mentioned would indicate that
practically 2/3rd of the said list belonged to different reserved
categories.
11. The chart marked as Exhibit "Y" indicates the pending list of
candidates eligible to be appointed on compassionate basis.
12. The contention of the drivers that Standing Order 4(C) under
the Act of 1946 is applicable to them, has been put to rest by the
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court in the matter of
Municipal Council, Tirora and another Vs. Tulsidas Baliram
Bindhade [2016(6) Mh.L.J.867]. Paragraph No.2 and paragraph
No.19 of the said judgment are relevant and it would be apposite to
reproduce the said paragraphs as under :-
"2. We find that the controversy already answered by at least
two Division Benches of this Court in 2006 & in 2008 in 2 LPAs
and by at least two learned Single Judges S/Shri S. J. Vazifdar
J. & B.P. Dharmadhikari J, after appreciating the binding
precedents of the Hon'ble Apex Court. We have therefore rejected
the request of Adv. M.P. Jaiswal to place the reference before Full
Bench. Judgments of the Division Benches of this Court in LPA
37 of 2006 in case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Dhananjay
Prabhakar Gokhale, (2006) 7 LJ Soft page 107 = (2006) 4 Mah.
L.J. page 66 ( RMS Khandeparkar J. & Roshan Dalvi J.) & in
LPA 14 OF 2008 dated 31-7-2008 reported at 2008 (5) All M.R.
497 = 2008 (10) LJ SOFT 53 - State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs.
Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav (Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P.
Deshpande, J.) as also of Single Judge (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) in
Ramesh Vitthal Patil & Ors. Vs. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal
Corporation & Ors. -- 2010(6) Bom. C.R. 661--2010 (8) LJ SOFT
39 and another judgment of a Single Judge (One of us- B.P.
Dharmadhikari J.) reported at 2011 (2) CLR 336=2011 (4)
Mh.L.J. 875-- Shrirampur Municipal Council Vs. V.K. Barde,
Member, Industrial Tribunal & Ors., are helpful here. In fact, the
respective learned Single Judges whose concurring orders lead
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
to this reference have also taken note of this legal position.
Though Shri Jaiswal made request to place the matter before the
Full Bench, he did not invite our attention to any contrary view
of the Division Bench in the matter of public employment
reached after considering the binding precedents. The third
learned Single Judge to whom these two concurring views have
been pointed out, noted the difference in facts presented to him
and therefore, arrived at a different conclusion. As a question of
law not requiring factual investigation is before us, respective
Counsel have avoided to comment on merits of any of these
orders and we also do not find it necessary to delve into it.
19. In this reference, the position emerging before us is similar.
There is no conflict between the provisions of M.S.O. 4-C and the
provisions of the S. 76 of the 1965 Act. In the event of the
appointment having been made validly, it may be possible to
invoke the provisions Cl. 4-C of M.S.O. A view to the contrary
would result in regularizing/validating a void act. Cl. 4-C neither
permits nor contemplates the same. As held in the above
judgments, if the appointment is not made in accordance with
the constitutional scheme, it is void ab-initio and, therefore, there
can be no claim to its regularization or for grant of permanency
in any manner. This is all the more so as Cl. 32 of the M.S.O.
clarifies that the Standing Orders are not to operate in
derogation of any other law i.e. S. 76 of 1965 Act. Definitely any
interpretation of Clause 4C conducive to defeating the
Constitutional mandate is unwarranted. Violation of Clause 4C
of the MSO may tantamount to an unfair labour practice under
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
item 9 of Sch. IV of the 1971 Act but unless & until, other
additional factors are proved on record, finding of indulgence in
an unfair labour practice under item 6 of Sch. IV thereof can not
be reached. As explained by the Hon. Apex Court in case of
Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari
Sanghatana, (supra), existence of a legal vacancy must be
established & as discussed above, the power to recruit with the
employer must also be demonstrated. In absence thereof,
workman can not succeed in proving the commission of unfair
labour practice under item 6 by the employer. These two
ingredients, therefore, also must be established when benefit of
Cl. 4-C is being claimed. Unless availability of a vacancy is
shown or then power with the employer to create the post and to
fill it is brought on record, mere continuation of 240 days can not
and does not enable the workman to claim permanency by
taking recourse to Cl. 4C read with item 9 of Sch. IV of 1971 Act.
Clause 4C does not employ word "regularisation" but then it is
implicit in it as no "permanency" is possible without it.
Conversely, it follows that when a statutory provision like S. 76
disables the employer either from creating or filling in the posts,
such a claim can not be sustained. This also nullifies the
reliance upon the judgment of learned Single Judge in case of
Maharashtra Lok Kamgar Sanghatana Vs. Ballarpur Industries
Limited (supra) where the employer was a private Company not
subjected to such regulatory measures by any Statute and
enjoyed full freedom to create the posts and to recruit. One of us
(B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) is party to the judgment of this Court in
Raymond UCO Denim Private Ltd. Vs. Praful Warade & Ors.
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
(supra) which again needs to be distinguished for the same
reasons. The judgment of learned Single Judge in case of Indian
Tobacco Company Ltd. vs. The Industrial Court and Ors. (supra),
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court affirming it or then judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court reported at Western India Match Company
Ltd. and Workmen are all considered therein & are
distinguishable as the same do not pertain to the province of
public employment or consider inherent Constitutional restraints
(the suprema lex - see Mahendra L. Jain v. Indore Development
Authority and others (supra) and Cl. 32 of the MSO. For same
reasons, law laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court
in 2007 (1) CLR 460- 2007 (1) Mah.L.J. 754- Gangadhar
Balgopal Nair Vs. Voltas Limited & Anr. does not advance the
cause of workmen. The Division Bench of this Court in May &
Baker Ltd. v. Kishore Jaikishandas Icchaporia (supra) while construing
Section 10-A(3) held that the expression "other law" would not
refer to the model standing orders or the certified standing
orders since they are laws made under the provisions of parent
act itself and not under any other law. The Model Standing
Orders and Certified Standing Orders, held the Division Bench,
"are laws no doubt but they are laws made under the provisions
of the Act". They were held not to be provisions under any other
law. This discussion therefore shows how these words "in
derogation of any law for the time being in force" in Cl. 32 of
MSO need to be understood & does not help Adv. Jaiswal or
Adv. Khan."
13. It is thus settled by the learned Division Bench of this Court
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
that merely because the Drivers may have worked for 240 days in
continuous employment, it would not entitle them for permanency.
This Court (Coram : Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.) in the matter of
Mukhyadhikari, Nagar Parishad, Tuljapur Vs.Vishal Vijay Amrutrao
and others, [2015(5) Mh.L.J.75] and in WP No.1843/2015 and
connected matters, Municipal Council, Tuljapur Vs. Baban Hussain
Dhale and others decided on 26/02/2015 has concluded that the
State Instrumentalities and establishments as like the Municipal
Councils and Municipal Corporations cannot grant regularization to
the daily wagers on non-existing posts. Unless the posts are
available, there cannot be regularization. The different departments
of the State Government are responsible for the creation of posts and
as such, unless such posts are created and, are vacant, daily wagers
cannot be regularized in service.
14. In the instant cases, it appears that 48 posts are available for
regularizing drivers. It cannot be ignored that 15 years ago, in the
earlier round of litigation, this very Corporation had made a categoric
statement before the Labour Court that the proposals of these drivers
(108) were forwarded for creation of posts and regularization and the
said proposal was pending grant of approval. The Industrial Court,
in the impugned judgments, in my view has rightly concluded that as
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
several employees were granted permanency in these last 15 years,
and the claims of these drivers apparently appears to have been
overlooked and ignored.
15. The contention of the Corporation is that fresh hands / new
faces were appointed from 2013 onwards in order to clear the backlog
and was under the direction of the learned Division Bench of this
Court in its order dated 10/07/2013 in WP No.2611/2013. It is
informed by Mr.Sapkal on the basis of the record as he had appeared
for a list of drivers who were selected on 06/07/2012 pursuant to the
advertisement dated 04/08/2011, that it was this list that was
directed by this Court to be appointed. There is no dispute that in
the list of the litigating drivers in the cases in hand, almost 2/3 of
them belong to the reserved categories, but they did not figure in the
said list of fresh hands who were appointed pursuant to the order of
the learned Division Bench dated 10/07/2013.
16. It is, therefore, apparent from the above record and facts that
there was surely an opportunity in 2011 for this Corporation to
regularize the services of these litigating drivers as the posts were
vacant and available. Even if those drivers appointed under orders of
this Court dated 10/07/2013 belong to the reserved categories, since
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
these litigating drivers were not a part of that list, it could only be
said that these litigating drivers thus lost an opportunity of
regularization.
17. In these peculiar facts as above, I am not convinced by the
submissions of the Corporation that these litigating drivers, barring
15, have become age barred and cannot be accommodated. The age
barrier would apply to a fresh appointment or under certain terms
and conditions which are introduced while making certain
appointments. In my view, applying the age barrier to these litigating
drivers who have worked in between 17 years to 23 years, would
amount to miscarriage of justice and travesty of justice. The
bonafides of the Corporation are neither convincing nor proved.
Despite the directions of the Industrial Court in the impugned
orders, these litigating drivers are sought to be ignored on a spacious
plea of 'age barrier'.
18. The contention of the Corporation that unless the enlisted
candidates for compassionate appointments are not appointed, these
litigating drivers cannot be accommodated, is a fallacious
submission. Some of the enlisted candidates are in queue from
2011. The Corporation has not come forward either before the
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
Industrial Court or before this Court as to whether there were any
vacancies for accommodating these candidates who are enlisted from
2011 onwards. Considering the above aspects, I do not find any
merit in the submissions of the Corporation.
19. In the State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has recorded in paragraph No.5 and 6 as to what was
the controversy before it in regard to the daily wagers, ad-hoc
appointees and contractual employees. Paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 read
as under :-
"5. The issue which arises for our consideration is, whether
temporarily engaged employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc
appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual
employees and the like), are entitled to minimum of the regular
pay-scale, alongwith dearness allowance (as revised from time
to time) on account of their performing the same duties, which
are discharged by those engaged on regular basis, against
sanctioned posts. The full bench of the High Court, while
adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that
such like temporary employees were not entitled to the
minimum of the regular pay-scale, merely for reason, that the
activities carried on by daily-wagers and the regular employees
were similar. However, it carved out two exceptions, and
extended the minimum of the regular pay to such employees.
The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Court in
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:-
"(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee
against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after
undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and
equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates,
shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from
the date of engagement.
(2) But if daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees
are not appointed against regular sanctioned posts and
their services are availed continuously, with notional
breaks, by the State Government or its instrumentalities
for a sufficient long period i.e. for 10 years, such daily
wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees shall be entitled
to minimum of the regular pay scale without any
allowances on the assumption that work of perennial
nature is available and having worked for such long
period of time, an equitable right is created in such
category of persons. Their claim for regularization, if any,
may have to be considered separately in terms of legally
permissible scheme.
(3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale
after more than three years and two months of completion
of 10 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc
or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a
period of three years and two months."
6. The issue which has arisen for consideration in the present
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
set of appeals, necessitates a bird's eye view on the legal
position declared by this Court, on the underlying ingredients,
which govern the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. It is
also necessary for resolving the controversy, to determine the
manner in which this Court has extended the benefit of
"minimum of the regular pay-scale" alongwith dearness
allowance, as revised from time to time, to temporary employees
(engaged on daily-wage basis, as ad-hoc appointees, as
employees engaged on casual basis, as contract appointees,
and the like). For the aforesaid purpose, we shall, examine the
above issue, in two stages. We shall first examine situations
where the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has been
extended to employees engaged on regular basis. And
thereafter, how the same has been applied with reference to
different categories of temporary employees."
20. In the State of Punjab case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has
considered catena of judgments delivered by its Court in the past
several decades and has considered the ratio laid down therein at
length. For the sake of clarity, it would be apposite to reproduce
paragraph No.43 to 46 as under :-
"43. We shall now venture to summarize the conclusions
recorded by this Court, with reference to a claim of pay parity,
raised by temporary employees (differently designated as work-
charge, daily-wage, casual, ad- hoc, contractual, and the like), in
the following two paragraphs.
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
44. We shall first outline the conclusions drawn in cases where a
claim for pay parity, raised at the hands of the concerned
temporary employees, was accepted by this Court, by applying
the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', with reference to
regular employees:-
(i) In the Dhirendra Chamoli case19 this Court examined a claim
for pay parity raised by temporary employees, for wages equal
to those being disbursed to regular employees. The prayer was
accepted. The action of not paying the same wage, despite the
work being the same, was considered as violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution. It was held, that the action amounted to
exploitation - in a welfare state committed to a socialist pattern
of society.
(ii) In the Surinder Singh case20 this Court held, that the right of
equal wages claimed by temporary employees emerged, inter
alia, from Article 39 of the Constitution. The principle of 'equal
pay for equal work' was again applied, where the subject
employee had been appointed on temporary basis, and the
reference employee was borne on the permanent establishment.
The temporary employee was held entitled to wages drawn by
an employee on the regular establishment. In this judgment, this
Court also took note of the fact, that the above proposition was
affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court, in the D.S.
Nakara case2.
(iii) In the Bhagwan Dass case21 this Court recorded, that in a
claim for equal wages, the duration for which an employee
would remain (- or had remained) engaged, would not make any
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
difference. So also, the manner of selection and appointment
would make no difference. And therefore, whether the selection
was made on the basis of open competition or was limited to a
cluster of villages, was considered inconsequential, insofar as
the applicability of the principle is concerned. And likewise,
whether the appointment was for a fixed limited duration (six
months, or one year), or for an unlimited duration, was also
considered inconsequential, insofar as the applicability of the
principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is concerned. It was held,
that the claim for equal wages would be sustainable, where an
employee is required to discharge similar duties and
responsibilities as regular employees, and the concerned
employee possesses the qualifications prescribed for the post. In
the above case, this Court rejected the contention advanced on
behalf of the Government, that the plea of equal wages by the
employees in question, was not sustainable because the
concerned employees were engaged in a temporary scheme, and
against posts which were sanctioned on a year to year basis.
(iv) In the Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P&T
Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch case22
this Court held, that under principle flowing from Article 38(2) of
the Constitution, Government could not deny a temporary
employee, at least the minimum wage being paid to an employee
in the corresponding regular cadre, alongwith dearness
allowance and additional dearness allowance, as well as, all
the other benefits which were being extended to casual workers.
It was also held, that the classification of workers (as unskilled,
semi-skilled and skilled), doing the same work, into different
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
categories, for payment of wages at different rates, was not
tenable. It was also held, that such an act of an employer, would
amount to exploitation. And further that, the same would be
arbitrary and discriminatory, and therefore, violative of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution.
(v) In State of Punjab v. Devinder Singh26 this Court held, that
daily- wagers were entitled to be placed in the minimum of the
pay-scale of regular employees, working against the same post.
The above direction was issued after accepting, that the
concerned employees, were doing the same work as regular
incumbents holding the same post, by applying the principle of
'equal pay for equal work'.
(vi) In the Secretary, State of Karnataka case28, a Constitution
Bench of this Court, set aside the judgment of the High Court,
and directed that daily-wagers be paid salary equal to the
lowest grade of salary and allowances being paid to regular
employees. Importantly, in this case, this Court made a very
important distinction between pay parity and regularization. It
was held that the concept of equality would not be applicable to
issues of absorption/regularization. But, the concept was held
as applicable, and was indeed applied, to the issue of pay
parity - if the work component was the same. The judgment
rendered by the High Court, was modified by this Court, and the
concerned daily-wage employees were directed to be paid
wages, equal to the salary at the lowest grade of the concerned
cadre.
(vii) In State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh30, a three-Judge
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
bench of this Court held, that the decisions rendered by this
Court in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh25, State of Haryana
v. Tilak Raj27, the Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology
case10, and Government of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy11, laid down
the correct law. Thereupon, this Court declared, that if the
concerned daily-wage employees could establish, that they were
performing equal work of equal quality, and all other relevant
factors were fulfilled, a direction by a Court to pay such
employees equal wages (from the date of filing the writ petition),
would be justified.
(viii) In State of U.P. v. Putti Lal31, based on decisions in several
cases (wherein the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' had
been invoked), it was held, that a daily-wager discharging
similar duties, as those engaged on regular basis, would be
entitled to draw his wages at the minimum of the pay-scale
(drawn by his counterpart, appointed on regular basis), but
would not be entitled to any other allowances or increments.
(ix) In the Uttar Pradesh Land Development Corporation case33
this Court noticed, that the respondents were employed on
contract basis, on a consolidated salary. But, because they were
actually appointed to perform the work of the post of Assistant
Engineer, this Court directed the employer to pay the
respondents wages, in the minimum of the pay-scales ascribed
for the post of Assistant Engineer.
45. We shall now attempt an analysis of the judgments, wherein
this Court declined to grant the benefit of 'equal pay for equal
work' to temporary employees, in a claim for pay parity with
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
regular employees:-
(i) In the Harbans Lal case23, daily-rate employees were denied
the claimed benefit, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal
work', because they could not establish, that the duties and
responsibilities of the post(s) held by them, were
similar/equivalent to those of the reference posts, under the
State Government.
(ii) In the Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union case6, ad-hoc
employees engaged in the Kendras, were denied pay parity with
regular employees working under the New Delhi Municipal
Committee, or the Delhi Administration, or the Union of India,
because of the finding returned in the report submitted by a
former Chief Justice of India, that duties and responsibilities
discharged by employees holding the reference posts, were not
comparable with the posts held by members of the petitioner
union.
(iii) In State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj27, this Court took a slightly
different course, while determining a claim for pay parity, raised
by daily- wagers (- the respondents). It was concluded, that
daily-wagers held no post, and as such, could not be equated
with regular employees who held regular posts. But herein also,
no material was placed on record, to establish that the nature of
duties performed by the daily-wagers, was comparable with
those discharged by regular employees. Be that as it may, it was
directed, that the State should prescribe minimum wages for
such workers, and they should be paid accordingly.
(iv) In State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh32, this Court held, that for
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
the applicability of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', the
respondents who were daily-wagers, had to establish through
strict pleadings and proof, that they were discharging similar
duties and responsibilities, as were assigned to regular
employees. Since they had not done so, the matter was
remanded back to the High Court, for a re- determination on the
above position. It is therefore obvious, that this Court had
accepted, that where duties, responsibilities and functions were
shown to be similar, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'
would be applicable, even to temporary employees (otherwise
the order of remand, would be meaningless, and an exercise in
futility).
(vi) It is, therefore apparent, that in all matters where this Court
did not extend the benefit of 'equal pay for equal work' to
temporary employees, it was because the employees could not
establish, that they were rendering similar duties and
responsibilities, as were being discharged by regular employees,
holding corresponding posts.
46. We have consciously not referred to the judgment rendered
by this Court in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh25 (by a two-
Judge division bench), in the preceding two paragraphs. We are
of the considered view, that the above judgment, needs to be
examined and explained independently. Learned counsel
representing the State government, had placed emphatic reliance
on this judgment. Our analysis is recorded hereinafter:-
(i) In the above case, the respondents who were daily-wagers
were claiming the same salary as was being paid to regular
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
employees. A series of reasons were recorded, to deny them pay
parity under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. This
Court expressed the view, that daily- wagers could not be
treated at par with persons employed on regular basis, because
they were not required to possess qualifications prescribed for
appointment on regular basis. Daily-wagers, it was felt, were not
selected in the same manner as regular employees, inasmuch
as, a regular appointee had to compete in a process of open
selection, and would be appointed, only if he fell within the zone
of merit. It was also felt, that daily-wagers were not required to
fulfill the prescribed requirement of age, at the time of their
recruitment. And also because, regular employees were subject
to disciplinary proceedings, whereas, daily-wagers were not.
Daily-wagers, it was held, could also not be equated with
regular employees, because regular employees were liable to be
transferred anywhere within their cadre. This Court therefore
held, that those employed on daily-wages, could not be equated
with regular employees, and as such, were not entitled to pay
parity, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.
(ii) First and foremost, it is necessary to emphasise, that in the
course of its consideration in State of Haryana v. Jasmer
Singh25, this Court's attention had not been invited to the
judgment in the Bhagwan Dass case21, wherein on some of the
factors noticed above, a contrary view was expressed. In the
said case, this Court had held, that in a claim for equal wages,
the manner of selection for appointment would not make any
difference. It will be relevant to notice, that for the posts under
reference in the Bhagwan Dass case21, the selection of those
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
appointed on regular basis, had to be made through the
Subordinate Selection Board, by way of open selection.
Whereas, the selection of the petitioners as daily- wagers, was
limited to candidates belonging to a cluster of villages, and was
not through any specialized selection body/agency. Despite
thereof, it was held, that the benefit under the principle of 'equal
pay for equal work', could not be denied to the petitioners. The
aforesaid conclusion was drawn on the ground, that as long as
the petitioners were performing similar duties, as those engaged
on regular basis (on corresponding posts) from the standpoint of
the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work', there could be no
distinction on the subject of payment of wages.
(iii) Having noticed the conclusion drawn in State of Haryana v.
Jasmer Singh25, it would be relevant to emphasise, that in the
cited judgments (noticed in paragraph 26 onwards, upto
paragraph 41), the employees concerned, could not have been
granted the benefit of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'
(in such of the cases, where it was so granted), because
temporary employees (daily-wage employees, in the said case)
are never ever selected through a process of open selection, by a
specialized selection body/agency. We would therefore be
obliged to follow the large number of cases where pay parity
was granted, rather than, the instant singular judgment
recording a divergent view.
(iv) Temporary employees (irrespective of their nomenclature) are
also never governed by any rules of disciplinary action. As a
matter of fact, a daily-wager is engaged only for a day, and his
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
services can be dispensed with at the end of the day for which
he is engaged. Rules of disciplinary action, are therefore to the
advantage of regular employees, and the absence of their
applicability, is to the disadvantage of temporary employees,
even though the judgment in State of Haryana v. Jasmer
Singh25, seems to project otherwise.
(v) Even the issue of transferability of regular employees referred
to in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh25, in our view, has not
been examined closely. Inasmuch as, temporary employees can
be directed to work anywhere, within or outside their cadre, and
they have no choice but to accept. This is again, a further
disadvantage suffered by temporary employees, yet the
judgment projects as if it is to their advantage.
(vi) It is also necessary to appreciate, that in all temporary
appointments (- work-charge, daily-wage, casual, ad-hoc,
contractual, and the like), the distinguishing features referred to
in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh25, are inevitable, yet in all
the judgments referred to above (rendered before and after, the
judgment in the State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh25), the
proposition recorded in the instant judgment, was never
endorsed.
(vii) It is not the case of the appellants, that the respondent-
employees do not possess the minimum qualifications required to
be possessed for regular appointment. And therefore, this
proposition would not be applicable to the facts of the cases in
hand.
(viii) Another reason for us in passing by, the judgment in State
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh25 is, that the bench deciding the
matter had in mind, that daily-wagers in the State of Haryana,
were entitled to regularization on completion of 3/5 years of
service, and therefore, all the concerned employees, would in
any case be entitled to wages in the regular pay-scale, after a
little while. This factual position was noticed in the judgment
itself.
(ix) It is not necessary for us to refer the matter for adjudication
to a larger bench, because the judgment in State of Haryana v.
Jasmer Singh25, is irreconcilable and inconsistent with a large
number of judgments, some of which are by larger benches,
where the benefit of the principle in question was extended to
temporary employees (including daily-wagers).
(x) For all the above reasons, we are of the view that the claim of
the appellants cannot be considered, on the basis of the
judgment in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh25."
21. In conclusion, while dealing with the claim of the temporary
employees, the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled in paragraph Nos. 53 to
58 as under :-
"53. We shall now deal with the claim of temporary employees
before this Court.
54. There is no room for any doubt, that the principle of 'equal
pay for equal work' has emerged from an interpretation of
different provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been
expounded through a large number of judgments rendered by
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The same
is binding on all the courts in India, under Article 141 of the
Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle, have been
summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. The principle of
'equal pay for equal work' has also been extended to temporary
employees (differently described as work-charge, daily-wage,
casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position,
relating to temporary employees, has been summarized by us, in
paragraph 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has
been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again.
55. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial
parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the
same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the
same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare
state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the
very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to
work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to
provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self
respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost
of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer
immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of
paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate,
constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a
domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive,
suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.
56. We would also like to extract herein Article 7, of the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
1966. The same is reproduced below:-
"Article 7 The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize
the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable
conditions of work which ensure, in particular:
(a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum,
with:
(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value
without distinction of any kind, in particular women being
guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by
men, with equal pay for equal work;
(ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in
accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant;
(b) Safe and healthy working conditions;
(c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his
employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no
considerations other than those of seniority and competence;
(d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and
periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public
holidays." India is a signatory to the above covenant, having
ratified the same on 10.4.1979. There is no escape from the
above obligation, in view of different provisions of the
Constitution referred to above, and in view of the law declared
by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the
principle of 'equal pay for equal work' constitutes a clear and
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
unambiguous right and is vested in every employee - whether
engaged on regular or temporary basis.
57. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the
application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', in
relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc
appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual
employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our
determination is, whether the concerned employees (before this
Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as
were being discharged by regular employees, holding the
same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the
application of the parameters of the principle of 'equal pay for
equal work' summarized by us in paragraph 42 above. However,
insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not
difficult for us to record the factual position. We say so, because
it was fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel representing
the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the
present bunch of appeals, were appointed against posts which
were also available in the regular cadre/establishment. It was
also accepted, that during the course of their employment, the
concerned temporary employees were being randomly deputed
to discharge duties and responsibilities, which at some point in
time, were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular
employees holding substantive posts, were also posted to
discharge the same work, which was assigned to temporary
employees, from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any
doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the
temporary employees in the present set of appeals, were the
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not
the case of the appellants, that the respondent-employees did
not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on
regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State, that
any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay
parity, on any of the principles summarized by us in paragraph
42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of
'equal pay for equal work' would be applicable to all the
concerned temporary employees, so as to vest in them the right
to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale of
regularly engaged Government employees, holding the same
post.
58. In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing
paragraph, we have no hesitation in holding, that all the
concerned temporary employees, in the present bunch of cases,
would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay-
scale (- at the lowest grade, in the regular pay- scale), extended
to regular employees, holding the same post."
22. In the light of the law as is laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court, it needs to be scrutinized as to whether a declaration of ULP
under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the State Act could have been made
against the Corporation. This Court has consistently held that when
posts are not available and cannot be created by a State
Instrumentality, it cannot be held guilty of depriving benefits of
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
permanency under Item 6 of Schedule IV.
23. Item 6 of Schedule IV reads as under :-
"To employ employee as "badlis", casuals or temporaries and to
continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving
them of the status and privileges of permanent employees."
24. In these group of cases, it has come on record through the
witness of the Corporation that several posts of drivers have been
filled in earlier. About 174 vehicles are being regularly used by the
Corporation and 68 sanctioned posts have been filled in. Thereafter,
since a fresh advertisement was published on 04/08/2011 and fresh
hands were appointed under the orders of this Court, it is obvious
that these pending claims of the litigating drivers were not brought to
the knowledge of this Court which ordered on 10/07/2013 that the
enlisted candidates from the reserved category be appointed. These
litigating drivers thus lost an opportunity. Even for the present, 48
posts are said to be vacant and no steps have been taken by the
Corporation to seek sanction for regularizing these litigating drivers
based on their seniority. In the backdrop of these set of facts, I find
that the Industrial Court has rightly concluded that this Corporation
is guilty of unfair labour practices under Item 6 of Schedule IV.
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
25. In so far as the direction in clause (3) of the impugned order is
concerned, I do not find existence of any legal impediment for
depriving these litigating drivers of regularization on the available 48
posts based on their seniority. The direction in clause (3) will
therefore have to be modified.
26. In the light of the above, all the writ petitions filed by the
Corporation bearing Nos.12428/2016, 12429/2016, 12430/2016,
12431/2016, 12432/2016, 12433/2016, 12434/2016, 12435/2016,
12436/2016, 12437/2016, 12438/2016, 12439/2016, 12440/2016,
12441/2016, 12442/2016, 12433/2016, 12444/2016, 12445/2016,
12446/2016, 12447/2016, 12448/2016, 12449/2016, 12450/2016,
12451/2016, 12452/2016, 12453/2016, 12454/2016, 12455/2016,
12456/2016, 12457/2016, 12458/2016, 12459/2016, 12460/2016,
12461/2016, 12462/2016, 12463/2016, 12464/2016, 12465/2016,
12466/2016, 12467/2016, 12468/2016, 12469/2016, 12470/2016,
12471/2016, 12472/2016, 12473/2016, 12474/2016, 12475/2016,
12476/2016, 12477/2016, 12478/2016, 12479/2016, 12480/2016,
12481/2016, 12482/2016, 12483/2016, 12484/2016, 12485/2016,
12486/2016, 12487/2016, 12488/2016, 12489/2016, 12490/2016,
12491/2016, 12492/2016. 12493/2016, 12494/2016, 12495/2016,
12496/2016, 12497/2016, 12498/2016, 12499/2016, 12500/2016,
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
12501/2016, 12502/2016, 12503/2016, 12504/2016, 12505/2016,
12506/2016, 12507/2016, 12508/2016 stand dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
27. The writ petitions filed by the litigating drivers bearing Writ
Petition Nos.12153/2016, 11342/2016, 11343/2016, 11344/2016,
11345/2016, 11346/2016, 11347/2016, 11348/2016, 11349/2016,
11350/2016, 11351/2016, 11352/2016, 11353/2016, 11354/2016,
11355/2016, 11500/2016, 11514/2016, 11515/2016, 12163/2016,
12195/2016 are partly allowed by modifying clause (3) of the
impugned order as under :-
[a] The Corporation shall regularize the services of these litigating
drivers based on their seniority as set out in Exhibit X in so far
as the 48 posts are concerned.
[b] The above regularization shall be from the dates on which each
of these posts has fallen vacant and that shall be the deemed
date of regularization of these drivers, who would then be
entitled to all consequential monetary benefits from that
deemed date.
[c] In so far as the remaining litigating drivers are concerned as
well as those drivers, if any, who are not before the Court, the
Corporation shall forward a complete proposal of all such
drivers to the Urban Development Department, State of
Maharashtra within a period of 12 weeks from today for
seeking creation of posts, if none are available and for grant of
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
regularization as per their seniority.
[d] The proposals received by the concerned Department of the
State Government shall be dealt with within a period of 1`6
weeks thereafter.
[e] Until these litigating drivers are not regularized, the
Corporation shall be precluded from engaging fresh hands on
vacant posts of Drivers.
[f] All these drivers on daily wages would be entitled for parity in
pay scale on the basis of the minimum pay scale prescribed by
the Pay Commissions considering the 6th and the 7th Pay
Commission, if applicable or at par with the basic pay scale
payable to the regular comparable drivers, keeping in view the
conclusions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Punjab
Case (supra)
[g] In the event of any grievance of these drivers as regards
shortfall in payment, they are at liberty to voice their grievance
before the appropriate forum for recovery of the said amount.
28. Any backlog if existing or if created due to the regularization of
these drivers, shall be cleared by the Corporation while making
further appointments in future.
29. Rule is made partly absolute in WP Nos. 12153/2016,
11342/2016, 11343/2016, 11344/2016, 11345/2016, 11346/2016,
11347/2016, 11348/2016, 11349/2016, 11350/2016, 11351/2016,
11352/2016, 11353/2016, 11354/2016, 11355/2016, 11500/2016,
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
11514/2016, 11515/2016, 12163/2016, 12195/2016
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/DEC.2016/12153-d
