Rais Ahmed Siddiqui vs Maha Animal & Fishery Sciences ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8349 Bom

                                                              W.P. No.5812/2004
                                      (( 1 ))


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                        WRIT PETITION NO.5812 OF 2004


 Rais Ahmed Siddiqui,
 Age 40 years, Occ. Service,
 R/o Rajmohammed Darga Road,
 Udgir, Taluka Udgir, District Latur            ...      PETITIONER

          VERSUS

 1.       Maharashtra Animal & Fishery
          Science University,
          (through its Registrar),
          Nagpur - 6.

 2.       The State of Maharashtra
          (through the Principal Secretary,
          Agricultural, Animal Husbandry,
          Dairy Development and Fisheries
          Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

          (Respondent No.2 to be served through
          the Government Pleader, High Court of
          Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)
                                           ...  RESPONDENTS

                                .....
 Shri K.M. Nagarkar, Advocate for petitioner
 Shri P.G. Rodge, Advocate for respondent No.1.
 Smt. M.A. Deshpande, Addl. G.P. for respondent N.2
                                .....

                                 CORAM:     RAVINDRA .V. GHUGE AND
                                            SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

DATED : 2nd NOVEMBER, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.):

1. By this petition, the petitioner has put forth the

following prayers in terms of prayer clauses 19(A) to 19(C):

W.P. No.5812/2004 (( 2 ))

(A) To hold and declare that the petitioner's services as Junior Clerk shall be deemed to have been transferred and he has become an employee of the respondent No.1 on and from the date appointed by the Government Resolutions dated 2.7.2001 and 3.8.2001 and therefore, entitled to grant of all the consequential benefits thereof including continuity in service, arrears of salary, seniority, etc.

(B) To direct the respondents to forthwith pay salary to the petitioner for the post of Junior Clerk on and from the date appointed by the Government Resolutions dated 2.7.2001 and 3.8.2001 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum by issuing a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction.

(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the above Writ Petition, the respondents, their officers, subordinates, agents and servants be restrained from accepting applications, considering and filling in one post of Junior Clerk in the respondent No.1 in terms of Advertisement No.18816 and 18818 of 2004.

2. By order dated 5.10.2004, passed by this Court,

interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C) was granted with the

further direction that the petitioner's salary and other benefits

W.P. No.5812/2004 (( 3 ))

shall be paid equivalent to those payable to a Junior Clerk.

3. The petitioner had approached the Labour Court

against his initial proposed retrenchment. His complaint was

allowed. The said judgment was subsequently quashed by the

learned Single Judge of this Court.

4. This Court noted in the order dated 5/10/2004 that,

since respondent No.1 was a new University and as the petitioner

was granted continuation in service by preventing respondent

No.1 from terminating his services pursuant to the proposed

termination, by the Labour Court, this Court concluded that the

petitioner's services should be continued under the respondent

No.1 new University and he would be entitled to all consequential

salary and other benefits.

5. By a further order dated 8/9/2008, this Court

concluded that since the petitioner is in continuous employment

after his transfer to respondent No.1, and since the challenge to

the judgment of the Labour Court, setting aside his retrenchment

order was subjudice in Writ Petition No.4567/2004 before the

learned Single Judge, it was held that the reliefs sought by the

petitioner in this petition would be dependent upon the final

order that may be passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ

Petition No.4567/2004.

W.P. No.5812/2004 (( 4 ))

6. The petitioner points out that, subsequently the

respondent No.1 University withdrew its challenge in Writ Petition

No.4567/2004 and, therefore, this Court, by order dated

10/11/2008, disposed of the said Writ Petition as having been

withdrawn by the respondent No.1 University.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,

pursuant to the above developments, he has already been

absorbed as a Junior Clerk by the respondent No.1 University and

there is no break in service. Even factually, there was no break

in service as he had rushed to the Labour Court after receiving

the notice of retrenchment and before he could be retrenched,

the Labour Court had protected his services. Subsequently, the

Labour Court had allowed his U.L.P. Complaint and had set aside

the proposed termination.

8. Considering the above, and in the light of the earlier

two orders passed by this Court, the petitioner has been deemed

to have been transferred to respondent No.1 and is continuing

with the respondent No.1 University for the last 13 years, with

continuity.

9. Taking into account the above factors, we do not

intend to travel beyond our observations in the said two orders

and especially the order dated 8/9/2008.

W.P. No.5812/2004 (( 5 ))

10. Considering the length of service of the petitioner,

and the circumstances in which the new University was created

for the purposes of all Veterinary Colleges being brought under

the umbrella of the said University, we hereby allow this petition

by concluding that the petitioner's services shall be deemed to be

continued with respondent No.1 on the post which he was earlier

occupying with the erstwhile Marathwada Agricultural University,

Parbhani with reference to its Research Centre at Beed. The

petitioner's services shall be deemed to be continuous. The

petitioner would be entitled for all such benefits as are

permissible in law, in the light of the service conditions applicable

to the petitioner.

11. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

          ( SUNIL K. KOTWAL )            ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE )
               JUDGE                            JUDGE




 fmp/