Bombay High Court
Maharahstra Universities Books ... vs State Of Maharashtra &3 Others on 10 March, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
J-wp3325.2000 & wp 103.2001.odt 1/10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.3325 OF 2000
1. Maharashtra Universities Books
Production Board Employees' Union,
Through its Secretary, Suresh R. Patil,
2. Shri Vasant Rambhau Bhute.
3. Ramesh Kisan Kangate.
4. Suresh Ramratan Patil.
5. Ganesh Baliramji Kalmegh.
Amendment carried 6. Ashok Vitthal Masram.
out as per Registrar's
Order dt.4.12.2013.
Legal heir of Petitioner No.6 :
Sanket Ashok Masram
Age 20 years,
Occupation : Student.
R/o. C/o. Bapurao Kinhake,
Somwari quarters, 24/3,
Near ESI Hospital,
Tukdoji Putala Square, Nagpur.
7. Sw. Suchita w/o. Virendra Deoghade.
8. Mahadeoji Krishna Nandanwar.
9. Kashinath Sadashiv Mendke.
Amendment carried
out as per order 10. Ramesh Ganpatrao Meshram.
dated 10.6.2002. Legal Heirs of Petitioner No.10 :
1. Shri Rohit Ramesh Meshram,
Aged about 17 years,
Occupation : Resident of Judges
Uttar Banglow Outhouse,
Japani Outhouse, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
2. Anita wd/o. Ramesh Meshram,
Aged about 36 years,
Resident of Judges Uttar Banglow Outhouse,
Japani Outhouse, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:25:16 :::
J-wp3325.2000 & wp 103.2001.odt 2/10
Amendment as
per Court's order
dated 1.12.2009. 11. Rambahor S. Tiwari.
12. Baburao Motiram Khorge.
Legal Heirs of Petitioner No.12 :
i. Kum. Rita d/o. Baburao Khorge,
ii. Harish s/o. Baburao Khorge.
Both residents of Bhandara.
(All Residents of C/o. S.R. Patil,
Dr. Dilip Tirpude's House,
Gokulpeth, Nagpur-10). : PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Higher Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Maharashtra Universities Book
Production Board, through its'
Executive Chairman, Law College
Premises, Amravati Road, Nagpur.
3. The Director of Higher Education
(Maharashtra State Central Building),
Pune.
4. Union of India,
Through its' Secretary,
Ministry of Education (Language Division),
New Delhi. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt. A.R. Taiwade, Asstt. Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Mr. Rohit Deo, Assistant Solicitor General of India with Anil Kamale,
Advocate for respondent No.4.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
AND
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:25:16 :::
J-wp3325.2000 & wp 103.2001.odt 3/10
WRIT PETITION No.103 OF 2001
Mahadeo s/o. Bakaramji Manekar,
Aged about 56 years,
Retired, Resident of Plot No.37,
Ayoddhya Nagar, Nagpur. : PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Department of Higher and Technical Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.
2. Chairman, Maharashtra Universities
Amendment carried Book Production Board and Minister
out as per Registrar
(Judicial) order
for Higher & Technical Education,
Government of Maharashtra,
dt.16.12.2015.
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Chairman, Maharashtra Universities
Books Production Board and Minister
for Higher and Technical Education,
Government of Maharashtra,
C/o. Assistant Director,
Higher Education, Old Morris College
Premises, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. Vice Chancellor,
Nagpur University, Nagpur.
Respondent No.4 4. Acting Director,
deleted vide Registrar Maharashtra Universities Book
(J) order
Production Board, Amravati Road,
dt.18.11.2015.
Nagpur. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt. A.R. Taiwade, Asstt. Government Pleader for Respondent No.1.
Mr. N.S. Khubalkar, Advocate for the respondent No.3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:25:16 :::
J-wp3325.2000 & wp 103.2001.odt 4/10
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
th
DATE : 10 MARCH, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Advocate Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Smt. A.R. Taiwade, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 3 in Writ Petition
No.3325/2000 as also for respondent No.1/State in Writ Petition
No.103/2001. Advocate Mr. N.S. Khubalkar has appeared for
respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.103/2001. Advocate Deo with
Advocate Anil Kamale appeared for respondent No.4-Union of India
in Writ Petition No.3325/2000.
2. Advocate Anand Parchure has submitted that the
petitioner before this Court had put in long years of service with
respondent No.2 Maharashtra Universities Book Production Board,
an autonomous body constituted by Union of India and State
Government together. He points out that the Board was about to
be closed down in 2002-03 and at that juncture an extension of two
years was granted by State Government. After that extension
ultimately activities of the Board have been closed down
permanently in the year 2005. Salaries of petitioners, terminal
J-wp3325.2000 & wp 103.2001.odt 5/10
benefits like gratuity, leave encashment, arrears have not been paid
by the Board, even wages were not revised as per Fifth Wage
Revision from 1.1.1996, hence, arrears on that account are also
payable. He invites attention to the orders passed by this Court in
present matters from time to time particularly the order dated 15 th
July, 2002 to submit that because of Court intervention part
amount has been paid to Shri Mahadeo Manekar-petitioner in Writ
Petition No.103/2001. However, his outstanding are about
Rs.2,38,226/- and that amount is still not received by him. He has
also invited our attention to the facts that service rules which
regulate service conditions of Board employees are produced on
record by the State Government as a part of its affidavit.
3. Advocate Shri N.S. Khubalkar as also Advocate Anil
Kamale are strongly opposing the petition. They submit that the
Board was an autonomous body and as such its employees cannot
demand any payment from any Government. Advocate Anil Kamale
submits that scheme was sponsored by Central Government
initially, but it was to be looked after by State Government.
Advocate Shri N.S. Khubalkar submits that after closure of Board,
University was asked to receive the records of the Board. He
contends that that does not mean that any relationship is
J-wp3325.2000 & wp 103.2001.odt 6/10
established between University and the petitioner before this Court.
4. Smt. A.R. Taiwade, learned A.G.P. adopts the same line
of arguments. She submits that the employees were never State
Government employees and their service conditions are not
regulated by State Government or any service rules. The Board had
its own service rules. A copy of Government Resolution dated 3 rd
March 2005 by which Board has been closed down is also produced
by her to support her contentions. We have taken copy of that
Government Resolution on record as Exhibit-Y. Its copy is served
upon Advocate Shri Anand Parchure also.
5. Learned A.G.P. further urged that the documents on
record are insufficient even to find out what is the exact claim of
each employee. She has invited attention to an annexure
along with Writ Petition No.103/2001 to urge that there the heads
of claim have been mentioned but basis for calculation is not
demonstrated.
6. With the assistance of the parties, we have perused the
records.
7. This Court on 15th July, 2002 passed following order :
"Heard the learned counsel for the
parties.
The learned A.G.P. has placed before us
J-wp3325.2000 & wp 103.2001.odt 7/10
a communication from the State dtd. 29.06.2002,
in which the State of Maharashtra has taken a
policy decision to continue the Board for a period of
2 more years. In view of this decision by the State,
it is needless to say that the State would be liable to
pay for the salary of the employees of the Board,
alongwith all the benefits which accrues to them,
including that arising out of the recommendations
of the 5th Pay Commission. Therefore, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to
admit these two petitions.
Rule returnable early.
Interim order - We direct the
respondent State, to make sufficient provision for
payment of salary and retiral benefits to the
employees in accordance with the rules. In case
there is any default on their part, parties would be
at liberty to move this Court.
In case the petition is not taken up for
hearing within a period of 2 years, the Court may
be moved in the matter for seeking further order or
directions. The communication received by the
learned A.G.P. by Fax be furnished on record by the
learned A.G.P. which can be marked as "X" for
identification.
Counsel for the respective respondents
waives service."
8. Advocate Parchure has submitted that this order obliged
State Government to extent benefits of Fifth Wage Revision also to
employees of Board. However, we are not in a position to find any
such direction therein. On the contrary, it appears that the
employer of present petitioners had never taken a decision to
J-wp3325.2000 & wp 103.2001.odt 8/10
extend the benefits of Fifth Wage Revision to them.
9. Perusal of Government Resolution dated 3rd March, 2005
at Exh.-Y shows a finding by State Government that the Board was
established in 1969 and as per its aims and objects, Board was
supposed to be a self-sufficient body. However, books published by
Board were not sold and there were some other errors, which led
to collapse thereof. Hence, Board could never become
self-sufficient. It has been noted that even fund given by Central
Government towards publication of books were being utilized for
paying salaries and allowances of employees. After taking review of
entire situation State Government found it proper to close down the
Board after paying the dues of employees. Accordingly, the
proposal for its closure sent by Director of Higher Education has
been accepted by State Government on 3rd March, 2005.
10 In the light of orders mentioned supra and this
Government Resolution, it is apparent that the State Government
has to pay the dues of employees of respondent No.2.
11. However, in writ jurisdiction it is difficult for this Court
to work out individual details. As already noted supra, demand by
employees of wages as per Fifth Wage Revision is misconceived and
it cannot be allowed. The other dues can be released in accordance
J-wp3325.2000 & wp 103.2001.odt 9/10
with service rules of employees. The petitioner Shri Mahadeo
Manekar has claimed amount of Rs.91,210/- on account of balance
gratuity. He has also claimed amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of
5th Pay Commission. There is a demand of Rs.35,000/- on account
of periodical promotion. In absence of any basis for such demands
or then pointing out what was the last salary drawn by him, the
amount mentioned by him as Rs.2,38,226/- cannot be accepted.
12. The employees have to give necessary details of their
service with documents to substantiate their contention and on that
basis they can claim the amount due and payable to them as per
their service rules. That has not been done in any of the petitions
before us.
13. In this situation, we grant liberty to employees before
this Court to make appropriate representation to State Government
containing necessary details within a period of 3 months from
today. If such representation is made, State Government shall
arrange for its scrutiny as per Rules and work out the entitlement &
dues, if any, payable to these employees within next three months.
It shall arrange to pay those amounts to these employees/their legal
heirs within further period of 3 months.
14. Acceptance of this amount by these employees/their
J-wp3325.2000 & wp 103.2001.odt 10/10
legal heirs shall not preclude them from challenging correctness of
the exercise undertaken.
15. With this directions, we partly allow the petition and
dispose of the same. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
okMksns
