Bombay High Court
Balaji Baburao Chikatwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 12 August, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, R. N. Laddha
(1) 994-wp-8828-2021 & ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
994 WRIT PETITION NO.8828 OF 2021
KRUSHNA RAMRAO WAGH ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Pratap V. Jadhavar,
Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr. A. R. Kale, AGP for Respondents-State.
...
AND
997 WRIT PETITION NO.8831 OF 2021
BALAJI BABURAO CHIKATWAD ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Pratap V. Jadhavar,
Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mrs. V. N. Patil-Jadhav, AGP for Respondents-State.
...
AND
999 WRIT PETITION NO.8833 OF 2021
VILAS SURESH WAGH ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Pratap V. Jadhavar,
Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondents-State.
::: Uploaded on - 17/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2021 15:34:21 :::
(2) 994-wp-8828-2021 & ors.
...
AND
1003 WRIT PETITION NO.8837 OF 2021
DEEPAK SUDHAKAR GAWLE ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AD OTHERS ..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Pratap V. Jadhavar, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondents-State.
...
AND
1007 WRIT PETITION NO.8841 OF 2021
KESHAV GANGADHARRAO KACHAKLAWAD ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Pratap V. Jadhavar, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mrs. V. N. Patil-Jadhav, AGP for Respondents-State.
...
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATED : 12th AUGUST, 2021.
PER COURT:-
1. The learned counsel submits that
petitioners are appointed as Krushi Sevak. The
petitioners had completed three years of service.
The petitioners are entitled to be granted pay
scale of Krushi Sahayyak. Only on the ground that
validity certificate is not submitted, the
respondents are not considering petitioners for
regularization.
::: Uploaded on - 17/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2021 15:34:21 :::
(3) 994-wp-8828-2021 & ors.
2. The learned A.G.P. on instructions submits
that in all these matters vigilance is pending.
3. Unless vigilance is completed, petitioners
may not have much role to play in the validation
proceedings.
4. In light of that, we pass the following
order:
ORDER
a. The petitioners shall appear before the
Scrutiny Committee on 02.09.2021.
b. The Committee shall endeavour to decide the
validation proceedings within a period of six (06)
months from the date of appearance of petitioners.
The petitioners shall co-operate in expeditious
disposal of validation proceedings before the
Committee.
c. The respondents shall take decision upon the
claims of petitioners for salary of Krushi Sahayyak
on its own merits.
d. The petitioners will have to show that, they
have competed three years satisfactory services and
the availability of the posts.
e. The claims of petitioners for pay scale as may
be prescribed shall not be rejected only on the
(4) 994-wp-8828-2021 & ors.
ground that validation proceedings are still
pending.
f. The respondents may take further course of
action depending upon the judgment that would be
delivered by the Committee in the validation
proceedings and whatever decision would be taken by
the Authority about the claims of petitioners, the
same would be provisional and subject to the
decision delivered by the Scrutiny Committee in the
validation proceedings.
5. Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs.
(R. N. LADDHA) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Devendra/August-2021
