Bombay High Court
Savaliram Sahebrao Tejinkar And ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 25 October, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 902.wp.4313.01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4313 OF 2001
1 Savaliram s/o Sahebrao Tejinkar,
Age : 41 years, Occupation : Service,
R/o Brahmagavan, Post Lohgaon,
Tal.Paithan, District Aurangabad.
2 Bhausaheb s/o Dashrath Tejinkar,
Age : 42 years, Occupation : Service,
R/o Brahmagavan, Post Lohgaon,
Tal.Paithan, District Aurangabad.
3 Ankush s/o Mohan Jadhav,
Age : 37 years, Occupation : Service,
R/o Mavazgaon, Post Lohgaon,
Tal.Paithan, District Aurangabad.
...PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
1 The State of Maharashtra.
(Copy to be served with the
Government Pleader, High Court of
Judicature of Bombay, Bench
at Aurangabad).
2 The Executive Engineer,
Irrigation Division, Aurangabad.
Sinchan Bhavan Complex,
Aurangabad.
3 The Superintending Engineer,
Aurangabad Irrigation Circle,
Behind Old High Court Building,
Aurangabad.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Shri R.S.Deshmukh.
::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:49:32 :::
*2* 902.wp.4313.01
AGP for Respondents: Shri P.N.Kutti.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 25th October, 2016
Oral Judgment :
1 The Petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order
dated 26.02.2001 delivered by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP)
No.158/1996 and the judgment dated 11.09.2001 delivered by the
Industrial Court, Aurangabad in Revision (ULP) No.22/2001.
2 I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides for
quite sometime.
3 It appears from the record that the employees in Writ Petition
Nos.4667/2001, 4668/2001 and 4768/2001, who were identically
situated with the Petitioners herein, have been granted reliefs by the lower
Courts as well as by this Court and in the light of the Government
Resolutions passed from time to time, they have been regularized in
employment.
4 The Petitioners herein unfortunately are said to have failed in
getting interim order from this Court. Though they were continued in
*3* 902.wp.4313.01
employment till 12.10.2001, merely because of the pendency of this
petition, all of them were terminated at 03:00 pm on 12.10.2001. I find
that as this petition was filed on 28.09.2001 and was heard on
23.10.2001, the Respondent/ Department has terminated their services as
noted above.
5 There is no dispute that barring the fact that the Petitioners in
the other three petitions mentioned above were granted interim protection
by this Court, there is no distinction in the nature of duties and service
conditions vis-a-vis the Petitioners in this petition.
6 The learned Advocate for the Petitioners, therefore,
strenuously submits that if the directions are issued to the Respondents to
consider the cases of these Petitioners on parity with the employees in the
other three disposed of petitions mentioned above and if the benefits are
extended to them as per the prevailing Government Resolutions and
especially the one dated 30.09.2010, these Petitioners could be considered
for service benefits and employment by the Respondents. There is no
dispute that these Petitioners have been working from 1998 till they had
been hurriedly terminated on 12.10.2001.
7 This Court (Coram : S.P.Davare, J.) had observed in
*4* 902.wp.4313.01
paragraph 11 of the order dated 15.07.2009 in Civil Application
No.7011/2009 as under :-
"11. In view of the facts of the matter and on the afore said
background and also considering the contents of the
present application, since the applicants herein are
almost situated in the same position in parity with
the petitioners in the afore said three Writ Petitions in
respect of their services, except the fact that the said
petitioners in those three Writ Petitions had interim
relief in their favour and were continued in their
respective services; but the applicants in the present
Writ Petition had no interim relief in their favour
and, therefore, they were not continued in their
services, it is for the parties in the present petition to
explore possibility of filing consent terms as filed in
above referred three petitions and it is the prerogative
of respondents to consider the said aspects and to take
positive steps adopting sympathetic approach in the
said direction and respondents may take appropriate
suitable steps, if any, in Writ Petition No.4313 of
2001, accordingly, at the earliest, preferably within
the period of three months, in accordance with law."
8 The Petitioners contend that they are willing to give up their
entire back wages from 12.10.2001 till the date of their reinstatement on
the condition that they are granted continuity in service and are
considered on parity with the other similarly situated employees who are
the Petitioners in the above mentioned three disposed of petitions.
9 The learned AGP submits that the statement on behalf of the
Respondents/ Department cannot be made, though under the directions of
*5* 902.wp.4313.01
this Court, the Respondents would consider the cases of the Petitioners on
parity and in the light of the Government Resolutions that are presently
applicable, keeping in view that the Petitioners would not be claiming the
back wages for the period during which they have been out of
employment. This aspect has also been covered in paragraph 11 of the
order dated 15.07.2009 reproduced above.
10 Considering the above and the observations of this Court in
paragraph 11 of the order dated 15.07.2009, this Writ Petition is disposed
of by directing the Respondents to consider the cases of these Petitioners
on parity with similarly situated employees who have succeeded before
this Court in the above mentioned three petitions. It is expected that the
Respondents/ Department shall take a decision with regard to these
Petitioners as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of
SIXTEEN (16) WEEKS from today.
11 Rule is discharged.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
