Bombay High Court
Ganesh Pralhad Gaikwad vs The Director, Directorate Of ... on 10 August, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
Judgment 1 W.P. No.682.2018.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 628 OF 2018
Ganesh Pralhad Gaikwad,
Aged about 46 years,
Occu. - Junior Clerk, Library,
M.C. Karanja, R/o. Shivaji Nagar,
Karanja, Dist. Washim.
.... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) The Director,
Directorate of Municipal
Administration,
Sir Pochkhanwala Road,
Warali, Mumbai.
2) The Regional Director of
Municipal Administration,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
3) The Municipal Council, Karanja Lad
through Chief Officer,
Tq. karanja Lad, Dist. Washim.
.... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Shri S. M. Vaishnav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms N. P. Mehta, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Shri P. P. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.3
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATED : 10.08.2021
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
Judgment 2 W.P. No.682.2018.odt
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The petitioner is peon working with respondent
No.3/Municipal Council, Karanja (Lad), who claims that by virtue of
the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial
Township State Services (Absorption, Recruitment and conditions of
Services Rules), 2006 (for short the "Rules of 2006"), he is entitled to
be absorbed in Municipal Administration service. He relies upon rule 5
of the Rules of 2006.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that when the petitioner is declared to be entitled for absorbtion in
relevant Municipal Administration service under the Rules of 2006, the
State Government cannot say that at present there is no policy in
operation whereby any existing municipal employees could be
absorbed in Municipal Administration service.
4. We have gone through the impugned communication dated
01.01.2018, it exactly states what is submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioner. The reason given therein appears to be not consistent
with the provisions made in rule 5 of the Rules of 2006. In the face of
these provisions, we wonder as to how the State would say that there is
no policy of the State to absorb the municipal employees in any
relevant Municipal Administration service, of course, subject to
Judgment 3 W.P. No.682.2018.odt
fulfillment of all the relevant conditions and criteria as prescribed in
rule 5 of the Rules of 2006. Therefore, the impugned communication is
illegal and it is quashed and set aside by allowing this petition.
5. The petition is, therefore, allowed.
6. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.1 for
fresh consideration of the issue in accordance with law, as
expeditiously as possible after giving due opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
7. The petitioner to appear before respondent No.1 on
23.08.2021 at 11.00 am. and after hearing the petitioner, respondent
No.1 shall take decision in accordance with law, within a period of two
months from the date of appearance of the petitioner.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(ANIL S. KILOR, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)
Kirtak
