Regional Provident Fund ... vs Shivraj S/O Jagannath Methiya
2017 Latest Caselaw 3872 Bom

                                                    1                                 Judg. wp 3729.06.odt 

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
                                    NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

                                               Writ Petition No.3729 of 2006

              1]        Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
                        Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, 
                        Ridge Road, Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur.

              2]        Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 
                        Maharashtra Region, Mumbai.                                .... Petitioners.

                                                               -Versus-

               Shivraj  Jagannath Methiya,
               Aged about 36 years, Occ.-Service,
               Resident of Old Chhaoni, Near Porwal College, 
               Kamptee, District Nagpur.                                                  .... Respondent.
               ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Shri  R.S. Sundaram, Counsel for petitioners.
               ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Coram : R. K. Deshpande & 
                             Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.

st Dated : 01 July, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R. K. Deshpande, J.)

Heard Shri Sundaram, the learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioners.

2] The Central Administrative Tribunal [for short, "the CAT"] has

allowed Original Application No.2017 of 2005 directing the respondent

no.2 to take decision on the proposal submitted by the respondent no.1 for

creation of two posts of 'Safai Kamgar' within a period of three months

2 Judg. wp 3729.06.odt

and consider the case of the applicant for grant of regularization in service

as a 'Safai Kamgar'.

3] The respondent was working as a 'Safai Kamgar' on daily wages

from 10-12-1990 to 09-03-1998 when he was terminated from the service.

It is not the claim for regularization granted by the CAT but the claim is

for creation of the post and absorption of respondent in service as

'Safai Kamgar'. It is well settled that the Court cannot direct creation of

posts. It is not the complaint that the respondent was not paid

retrenchment compensation.

4] In view of above, we find that the Tribunal has not justified in

allowing the Original Application directing the petitioners to create the

post and then to take steps to absorb the respondent in service. We,

therefore, quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 28-10-2005

passed in Original Application No.2017 of 2005 by the CAT.

5] Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.

                                             JUDGE                                             JUDGE




                            Deshmukh