Bombay High Court
Vinayak Raoji Tupe vs President, M.G.Mission Society, ... on 9 May, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/5634/1999
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5634 OF 1999
Vinayak S/o. Raoji Tupe,
died through L.Rs. :
1) Kantabai Vinayak Tupe,
Age : 30 years, Occu: Household & Labour,
R/o. Shevta Taluka Phulambri,
Dist. Aurangabad.
2) Vishwanath Vinayak Tupe,
Age : 5 years, Minor u/g. of mother
Kantabai Vinayak Tupe.
3) Sainath Vinayak Tupe,
Age : 3 years, Minor u/g. of mother
Kantabai Vinayak Tupe.
4) Ajinath Vinayak Tupe,
Age : 1 year, Minor u/g. of mother
Kantabai Vinayak Tupe. ...Petitioners.
Versus
1. President,
Mahatma Gandhi Mission Society,
Aurangabad.
2. Principal,
Jawaharlal Neharu Engineering College,
Aurangabad.
3. The Presiding Officer,
College Tribunal,
University Campus, Aurangabad. ...Respondents.
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Dhengle S.A.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: May 09, 2017
...
WP/5634/1999
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated
3.8.1994 delivered by the College and University Tribunal, by which,
the respondent Engineering College was directed to either continue
the petitioner as a daily wager as he was engaged earlier or if no
vacancy is available within ten weeks from the receipt of the
judgment copies, the respondent can pay six month's emoluments as
per Section 42D(2)(e) of the Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada
University Act.
2. This petition was filed on 15.7.1996. It was dismissed for non-
removal of office objections. After restoration, it was circulated on
30.11.1999. The petitioner has passed away on 21.7.2005 and legal
heirs have been brought on record.
3. Shri Dhengale learned Advocate for the legal heirs strenuously
prays for full backwages, continuity in service and all retiral benefits,
which the deceased petitioner would have been entitled to had he
been alive.
4. I had considered his submissions. It is undisputed that the
deceased petitioner used to be given work as a Peon from time to
time by the respondents 1 and 2 management. He was not issued
WP/5634/1999
with any appointment order and is said to have worked intermittently
in between 1990 to 3.7.1992. He was paid daily wages on vouchers.
He was neither selected nor appointed in accordance with the Rules.
The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that he was an irregular daily
wager. He was being given work intermittently by the respondent /
management on sympathetic ground considering that he was
physically disabled.
5. In the light of these findings on facts, I do not find that the
contention of the petitioner could be accepted for grant of
continuity of service and full backwages from the date of his oral
disengagement till his demise on 21.7.2005. This petition, therefore,
cannot be entertained.
6. Shri Dhengale learned Advocate submits that the respondent /
management has not challenged this judgment before this Court and
has, therefore, accepted the directions for payment of six monthly
emoluments.
7. In the light of the above, this petition is dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
8. It however, needs mention that if the respondents have not
challenged the directions to pay six monthly emoluments, respondent
WP/5634/1999
Nos.1 and 2 shall accordingly make the said payment to the wife of
the deceased, namely, Kantabai Vinayak Tupe on the address
mentioned in the cause title, within a period of eight weeks from
today, if not already paid and Interest @ 6% per annum from the date
of judgment of the Tribuanl shall also be payble in the event the said
amount is not paid within eight weeks as directed above.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
