The Chief Officer Municipal ... vs Bhagwan Raibhan Kalokhe
2016 Latest Caselaw 6133 Bom

                                                        *1*                          912.wp.6922.16


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                                       
                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 6922 OF 2016




                                                               
    The Chief Officer,
    Municipal Council, Pathardi.
    Nanbhau s/o Vishwnath Mahanwar,




                                                              
    Age : 49 years, Occupation : Service,
    R/o Quarter of Municipal Council,
    Pathardi,, Tq.Pathardi,
    District Ahmednagar.
                                                  ...PETITIONER




                                                 
              -VERSUS-               
    Bhagwan s/o Raibhan Kalokhe,
    Age : Major, Occupation : Nil,
                                    
    R/o Pathardi, Tq.Pathardi,
    District Ahmednagar.
                                                  ...RESPONDENT
       

                                                ...
                      Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Naiknavare Ramesh V.
    



                       Advocate for Respondent : Shri Barde Parag Vijay.
                                                ...

                                           CORAM:  RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATE :- 18th October, 2016

Oral Judgment :

1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

    2                  By   order   dated   19.08.2016,   this   Court   had   observed   as 





                                                         *2*                           912.wp.6922.16


    under:-




                                                                                        

"1. This matter is heard for some time. The impugned judgment of the Industrial Court refers to clause 43(A) of the Government order No.23-A dated

01/08/2006 while granting relief to the respondent. However, clause 43(B) has not been considered.

2. Ex-facie, it appears that clause 43(A) provides for the categories in which the retiring parent used to work

so as to entitle the legal heir to seek employment in his place. Clause 43(B) pertains to the eligibility criteria prescribing that the said parent should retire on medical grounds so as to create a right for the

legal heir to be inducted in employment.

3. Mr.Barde submits that he would consider this

position and would make his submissions on the next date.

4. Stand over to 07/09/2016 for further consideration.

5. Interim relief, granted earlier, to continue."

3 The Petitioner, who is challenging the judgment and order

dated 03.05.2016 delivered by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP)

No.13/2015, submits that the Industrial Court has wrongly directed the

Petitioner to provide a job to the Respondent/ original Complainant on

compassionate ground within a period of one month. It is further stated

that the claim of the Respondent was not for compassionate appointment,

but was based on the Lad Committee Recommendations.

4 Recent developments with regard to the Lad Committee

Recommendations need to be taken into account. The learned Division

Bench of the Court at the Nagpur Bench, vide it's order dated 07.05.2015

*3* 912.wp.6922.16

in Writ Petition No.6155/2014 (Nitin Ganesh Chandraliya and others vs.

Nagpur Municipal Corporation and others), has dealt with the issue of Safai

Kamgars and the Lad Committee Recommendations with regard to the

State instrumentalities. It is known to all that the Lad Committee

Recommendations are commonly termed as "Vashila Paddhat". This Court,

therefore, in it's order dated 07.05.2015 was of the view that the policies

evolved from the Lad Committee Recommendations may not be relevant

in the present age. A statement was made on behalf of the Government

that the said Lad Committee Recommendations would be reconsidered.

5 The Government Resolution dated 10.11.2015 is placed on

record by Shri Barde which indicates that the case of the Respondent is

squarely covered by clause (C) (Marathi clause "k"). It is then pointed out

from the Government Resolution dated 11.03.2016 placed on record that

the view expressed by this Court in the order dated 07.05.2015 was

considered by the Department of Social Justice and Special Assistance,

Government of Maharashtra and it was specifically concluded in clause

3(2) that the Lad Committee Recommendations would continue to apply

and the policies devised by the State Government pursuant thereto would

continue to be in force. In my view, the case of the Respondent, therefore,

is squarely covered by clause 3(2) and 3(3) of the said Government

Resolution dated 11.03.2016.

                                                              *4*                          912.wp.6922.16




                                                                                            
           6                 Once   the   State   Government   has   decided   to   continue   to 

enforce the policies devised under the recommendations of the Lad

Committee, this petition fails.

7 However, it needs to be clarified that the Industrial Court has

used an incorrect term "compassionate ground" in the judgment. The

Respondent had never claimed compassionate appointment. The said

words, therefore, shall be ignored.

8 In the light of the above, this Writ Petition being devoid of

merit is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.

    kps                                                        (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)