Bombay High Court
Balwant Sadashiv Gadge vs State Of Mah.Thr.Secty. And 3 Ors on 4 January, 2018
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 WP.3065.02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3065 OF 2002.
Balwant Sadashiv Gadge,
R/o C/o M.H. Mohod,
(Navneet Building) Beside
Kharote Jewellery Shop,
Near Shreyas Apartment,
Rautwadi, Akola, District
Akola. ..... PETITIONER.
....Versus....
1] State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Higher and
Technical Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
2] Director of Vocational Education
& Training, 3 Mahapalika Marg,
Post Box No. 10036, Mumbai-
400 001,
3] Deputy Director of Vocational
Education & Training, Regional
Office, Amravati, Dist. Amravati,
4] Principal, Industrial Training
Institute, Akola, Dist. Akola. ...... RESPONDENTS.
Mr. A. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. A.R. Kulkarni, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : JANUARY 4, 2018.
2 WP.3065.02
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
, J.)
1] Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2] The petitioner who started working against a clear
permanent post from 4.7.1986 seeks quashing of order dated
1.7.2002 delivered by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A.
No. 231/01.
3] Mr. A. Deshpande, learned Advocate for petitioner,
submits that G.R. dated 19.9.1975 was not applicable in case of
petitioner and has been erroneously relied upon by respondents and
accepted by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
4] Ms. A.R. Kulkarni, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to
3, has taken us through order of Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, particularly paragraph no.3 and also through G.R. dated
19.9.1975. She submits that it gives benefit to employee for the
purposes of computing his qualifying service.
5] Facts are not in dispute. Petitioner joined services as
Craft Instructor initially on 24.1.1985 for a period of six months
3 WP.3065.02
against a temporary vacancy as holder of that post Shri Patil was
deputed for training. After this first appointment, again he got another
appointment on 30.7.1985 as Turner Instructor as stop-gap
arrangement for a period of 11 months. The vacancy was not
permanent. It is thereafter that he got a regular appointment as per
order dated 1.7.1986. The discussion shows that it was against a
permanent and clear vacancy. Since that date, petitioner has
continued in employment without any break and disturbance.
6] In his service record, date of permanency has been
recorded as 4.7.1989 and this was questioned before Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal. Respondents relied upon provisions
contained in Government Resolution dated 19.9.1975 and
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has accepted it. Therefore,
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has found that permanency
given to petitioner from 4.7.1989 is proper.
7] Perusal of G.R. dated 19.9.1975 shows that it is meant for
temporary Government servants who have continued as such and
were getting extensions as temporary Government servants. Issue of
giving permanency to them was pending before the State
Government and State Government thought it proper to recognize
4 WP.3065.02
them as permanent after they put in three years as temporary
servants. Thus, a temporary servant, who may have worked as stop-
gap arrangement or against leave vacancy on 2-3 posts, can after
completion of three years' service be recognised as permanent
Government servant, though at that juncture he may not be holding
any post permanently. Thus, absence of a permanent clear vacancy
to accommodate such temporary servant has been taken care of and
intention is to recognize service put in by such Government servant
as qualifying service, though technically he does not hold any post
under the Government.
8] The facts at hand show that on 4.7.1986 there was a
permanent and clear vacancy and petitioner has been appointed
against it. As such, above-mentioned G.R. cannot be used to his
prejudice by subtracting three years of service rendered by him after
4.7.1986. G.R. dated 19.9.1975 is not meant to be applicable in such
situations. Petitioner, therefore, deserves to be treated as permanent
servant from 4.7.1986 itself.
9] Accordingly, we quash and set aside the order dated
1.7.2002 in O.A. No. 231/01 and direct respondents to record
services of petitioner from 4.7.1986 as permanent service for all
5 WP.3065.02
purposes.
10] The Writ Petition stands disposed of. Rule is made
absolute accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE. JUDGE.
J.
