Bombay High Court
Bipin Chhaburao Patole And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 21 July, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
921_WP917516.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9175 OF 2016
1. Bipin Chhaburao Patole
Age: 38 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Subedari Guest House, Quarter No.26,
Delhi Gate, Aurngabad.
2. Feroz Khan Nawab Khan Pathan
Age: 34 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Plot No. 75, Chaush Colony,
Himayat Bag, Aurangabad.
At present R/o Chaus Colony,
Himayat Bag, Aurangabad.
3. Deepak Shviaji Magare
Age: 41 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o N-11, F-15/13, Navjeevan Colony,
HUDCO, Aurangabad.
4. Shaikh Shahed Shaikh Ismail
Age: 41 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Plot/H. No. 2-12-33, Delhi Gate,
Himayat Bag, Aurangabad.
5. Nitin Chhaburao Patole
Age: 44 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Subedari Guest House Quarters,
Aurangabad.
6. Latif Shah Shabbir Shah
Age: 49 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Subedari Guest House Quarters,
Aurangabad.
7. Shaikh Abdul Aziz Shaikh Abdul Gani
Age: 44 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Subedari Guest House Quarters,
Aurangabad.
1 / 6
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:01:15 :::
921_WP917516.odt
8. Chandrkant Rambhau Dabhade
Age: 47 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Subedari Guest House Quarters,
Aurangabad.
9. Shaikh Nisar Shaikh Papamiyan
Age: 44 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Subedari Guest House Quarters,
Aurangabad.
10. William Ratan Lalzare
Age: 37 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Subedari Guest House Quarters,
Aurangabad.
11. Dilip Prabhakar Sutar
Age: 37 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Subedari Guest House Quarters,
Aurangabad.
12. Khalil Khan Mahmood Khan
Age: 38 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Subedari Guest House Quarters,
Aurangabad.
13. Sanjay Murlidhar Sathe
Age: 41 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Subedari Guest House Quarters,
Aurangabad.
14. Dinesh Shivaji Magare
Age: 41 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Subedari Guest House Quarters,
Aurangabad.
15. Raju Uttam Wagh
Age: 37 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Subedari Guest House Quarters,
Aurangabad.
16. Kishor Dattu Gawai
Age: 38 years, Occu.: Service,
2 / 6
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:01:15 :::
921_WP917516.odt
R/o Subedari Guest House Quarters,
Aurangabad.
17. Sanjay Ukhaji Dudhe
Age: 36 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Subedari Guest House Quarters,
Aurangabad.
18. Shaikh Zakir Shaikh Yusuf
Age: 40 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Subedari Guest House Quarters,
Aurangabad.
19. Shaikh Irfan Shaikh Raheem
Age: 36 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Subedari Guest House Quarters,
Aurangabad.
20. Smt. Aruna Ramdas Raut
Age: 43 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Subedari Guest House Quarters,
Aurangabad. ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Superintendent Engineer
Public Works Department,
Bandkam Bhavan
District Court Premises,
Adalat Road, Aurangabad.
3. The Executive Engineer
Public Works Department,
Padampura, Opp. Divekar Auto Garage,
Aurangabad.
3 / 6
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:01:15 :::
921_WP917516.odt
4. Kishor Dashrath Wagh
Age: 40 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Misarwadi, MIDC Area, Aurangabad. ..RESPONDENTS
....
Mr. V.P. Latange, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
....
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATED : 21st JULY, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This petition was admitted by order dated 09 th March, 2017 and
interim relief was refused. The petitioners tender a Government Resolution
dated 24th April, 2001 contending that it covers the case of the petitioners. The
contention is that by the said Government Resolution, the Public Works
Department, Irrigation Department, Rural Development Department and Water
Conservation Department - the competent department would consider the
claims of the daily wagers as like the petitioners. If the proposals of the
petitioners are forwarded by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to Respondent No.1, they
could consider these proposals in the light of the Government Resolution and
pass appropriate orders.
2. The A.G.P. submits that as the Government Resolution indicates that
the proposals of 11,632 daily wagers was being considered, the proposals of
these petitioners could also be considered strictly in accordance with the
4 / 6
921_WP917516.odt
modalities and the terms of the Government Resolution. The respondents are
not extending any assurance to the petitioners.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that if their proposals
get rejected, they may assail the rejection only to the extent of the reasons for
the rejection. He therefore submits that the petition can be disposed of.
4. In the light of the above, this petition is disposed off. Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 shall prepare a proposal of the petitioners as well as any other
temporary worker similarly situated, within a period of eight weeks from today
and forward the same to Respondent No.1 for consideration as per the
Government Resolution dated 24th April, 2001.
5. The Respondent No.1 or the competent department shall then decide
the said proposal within a period of four months, shall pass a reasoned order
accepting or rejecting the proposal and communicate the same to the petitioner.
The petitioners submit the following address for correspondence and
communication:-
"Plot No.75, Chaush Colony,
Himayat Bag, Aurngabad."
5 / 6
921_WP917516.odt
6. Needless to state, if Respondent No.1 or the competent department
rejects the proposal of the petitioners, same shall be by assigning reasons and
shall be communicated forthwith to the petitioners on the above address.
7. Dismissal of this petition, observations of this Court in the order
dated 09th March, 2017 and the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 07 th
August, 2014 dismissing Complaint ULP No. 107 of 2008, shall not be an
impediment.
8. If the proposal is rejected, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise
a challenge only to the extent of the reasons for rejection. Rule is discharged.
( RAVINDRA V GHUGE, J. )
SSD
6 / 6
