Bombay High Court
Shriniwas Ramakant Rajurkar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 27 June, 2017
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
41_WP1072416.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10724 OF 2016
Shriniwas Ramakant Rajurkar
Age: 39 years, Occu.: At present unemployed,
R/o Vaishnav Galli, Gangakhed,
Dist. Parbhani. ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
Department of Forest,
Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Additional Principal Chief Conservator
of Forest (Administration Subordinate Cadre),
Vanbhavan, Nagpur.
3. Dy. Conservator of Forest
Parbhani Division, Karegaon Road,
Parbhani. ..RESPONDENTS
....
Mr. Sunil B. Jadhav, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Badkh, A.G.P. for respondents.
....
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA &
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ
DATED : 27th JUNE, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. ) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of
the parties.
1 / 4
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:17:46 :::
41_WP1072416.odt
2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 28th June, 2016 passed by
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (the "Tribunal"), Mumbai, Bench at
Aurangabad, whereby petitioner's original application was dismissed resulted into
denial to his claim of regularisation of service as a labour. Heard learned Counsel
appearing for parties.
3. Read Government Resolution dated 16th October, 2012 and reasoned
order passed by the Tribunal. We have noted that though impugned resolution is
dated 16th October, 2012, there is nothing to reflect that the labourer must be
physically in service on 16th October, 2012 to claim regularisation. The petitioner
was terminated in the year 2004. The termination order was challenged in Court
but dismissed in default on 08th January, 2007. Clause (5) of the resolution itself
provides that though labour's litigations and/or cases even if pending, those
labours can be considered for regularisation, provided they must withdraw the
litigation. This itself means such person whose litigations are pending on the date
16th October, 2012, or even otherwise terminated earlier, are eligible to claim
permanency, based upon resolution, provided, they are otherwise eligible
including the age factor. It is also clear that earlier termination even, if any, prior
to 16th October, 2012, is no reason to deny the claim of permanency to who is
otherwise eligible as per the resolution.
2 / 4
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:17:46 :::
41_WP1072416.odt
4. The petitioner had been working from 1993 to 2003. Paragraph no.3
reflect the chart of his period of service and total days of work. The petitioner
admittedly had worked for more than 240 days in each year till the date of his
termination in the year 2003. The order of termination was challenged.
However, same was dismissed for default in the year 2007. As per the resolution,
the basic requirement is that such person should have served for more than 240
days, either continuously or in piecemeal in each year from 01 st November, 1994
to 30th June, 2004. The petitioner admittedly, qualified for regularisation in view
of above position on record. He worked continuously for more than five years,
240 and above days in every year. There is nothing on record to point out that
such labourer must be in service on 16th October, 2012.
5. For the reasonings so given above, we are not inclined to accept that he
was not in service on/or not working as labour on 1st June, 2004, therefore
disentitled the regularisation. Whosoever worked during the prescribed period as
per resolution, from 01st October, 1994 to 30th June, 2015 continuously and/or in
piecemeal and completed 240 days in each year for five years, is entitled for
regularisation, provided is otherwise eligible. Except this, there is no issue against
the petitioner as petitioner is entitled for regularisation as otherwise eligible as
there is no age bar affecting his claim. Therefore, taking over all view of the
matter, we are inclined to interfere the order passed by the Tribunal dated 28 th
June, 2016. The impugned order therefore is set aside. Original application is
3 / 4
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:17:46 :::
41_WP1072416.odt
allowed to the extent of regularisation of services of the petitioner as provided by
Government Resolution dated 16th October, 2012.
6. Considering the peculiarity of the facts and circumstances of the case,
we are inclined to pass following order:
O R D E R
i) Impugned order dated 28th June, 2016 passed by the
Tribunal is quashed and set aside.
ii) Respondents are directed to regularise the services of
petitioner as prayed provided by Government Resolution
dated 16th October, 2012, as early as possible.
iii) Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
No costs.
( SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J. ) ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. )
SSD
4 / 4
