Bombay High Court
Sharad Prabhakar Sonawane And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 21 August, 2021
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, S. G. Mehare
1 901-WP.12706-18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 WRIT PETITION NO.12706 OF 2018
SHARAD PRABHAKAR SONAWANE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Ms. P. S. Talekar h/f Mr. S. B. Talekar.
AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. P. S. Patil.
Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 & 5 : Mr. Joshi Milind M.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, AND
S. G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATE : 21.08.2021
PER COURT :-
1. By this petition, the three petitioners have put forth
prayer clauses "A, B, C and D", which read as under :
"(A) To quash and set aside the termination order dated
13.11.2018 issued by the Chief Executive Officer (Exhibit-"L"),
by issuing a writ of certiorari, or any other writ or order as the
case may be;"
"(B) To grant interim stay to the termination order dated
13.11.2018 issued by the Chief Executive Officer (Exhibit-"L"),
pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition;"
"(C) To grant ad-interim stay in terms of prayer clause"B";"
"(D) To direct the respondents to continue the petitioners till
31.07.2022 as per the Government Resolution dated 28.8.2017,
and regularise the services of the petitioners with all the
consequential benefits; by issuing a writ of mandamus or any
other writ, order or direction as the case may be;"
2 901-WP.12706-18.odt
2. The petitioners had specifically contended on the basis of
the photostat copies of the muster roll for the month of
November 2018 at Page Nos.110 to 112 of the petition paper
book that though the petitioners were issued with the
impugned termination order, the said order was not actually
effected and they had continued in employment. Their
signatures on the muster roll as well as the alphabet "T"
meaning that they were travelling on job assignment, would
indicate that they were in employment when the petition was
filed on 20.11.2018. Looking at these pleadings, this Court
had passed an order on 22.11.2018 directing respondent Nos.5
and 6 to maintain status-quo as regards the employment /
services of the petitioners as on the said date. The said interim
order was continued from time to time.
3. The petitioners further submit that on 27.02.2019, this
Court had passed an order that if the petitioners are working
on the posts, they would be entitled for salary and the
concerned authority shall take effective steps.
3 901-WP.12706-18.odt
4. On 03.04.2019, this Court considered the pleadings of
the petitioners and directed that if the petitioners are working
on the posts, then the respondents shall not withhold their
salary.
5. The learned advocate for the petitioners then points out
the order dated 30.04.2019 passed by this Court, wherein this
Court directed the said respondents to pay the salaries of the
petitioners. It is then submitted that on 13.06.2019,
respondent Nos.4 and 5 disengaged the petitioners on the
ground that their contract had come to an end. They were
working as Special Technical Officers. Without seeking leave
of the Court, they were disengaged.
6. By a communication dated 11.12.2019, the Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna had informed these
three petitioners that as this Court had directed to continue
their employment and pay their salaries, they were continued
until 02.06.2019 and since the contract with the Zilla Parishad
came to an end by efflux of time, they were disengaged with
effect from 03.06.2019.
4 901-WP.12706-18.odt
7. The learned advocate then draws our attention to an
order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench on 29.01.2020 in Writ
Petition No.4682 of 2019 filed by Chetan Nivrutti Mahajan and
another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, wherein this Court
directed, while disposing of the petition that the said
petitioners should be continued in employment and having
regard to the Government Resolution dated 28.08.2017, they
should not discontinue the said petitioners till 31.07.2022,
which is the period of their contract. Liberty was granted to the
said petitioners to approach the State Government or the
respondents for seeking regularization.
8. The learned advocate for Zilla Parishad points out that
the petitioners were disengaged on 13.11.2018. As this Court
directed that they should be paid their salary if they were
working, that the petitioners were allowed to join duties from
April 2019. As the contract of employment came to an end,
they were disengaged with effect from 03.06.2019. It is then
pointed out that this Court has delivered a judgment on
05.08.2021 in Writ Petition No.7553 of 2018 filed by Gajanan
Hanmantrao Deshmukh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
others. Since similarly placed employees were reinstated by
5 901-WP.12706-18.odt
the Parbhani Zilla Parishad, this Court also granted the same
relief to Gajanan. As he was not in employment till this Court
delivered it's judgment, he was deprived of back wages.
9. We find from the record before us that the muster roll
would indicate that the petitioners have signed in token of
attending duties till 20.11.2018. On 22.11.2018, they were
granted interim protection. However, it reflects from the
contentions of the Zilla Parishad that they were disengaged
after November only to be reinstated in April 2019.
10. In our view, once they were in employment
notwithstanding under the orders of this Court, if they were to
be disengaged thereafter, the Zilla Parishad should have
approached this Court by preferring an application setting out
reasons for disengaging the petitioners. In the backdrop of the
Court orders directing payment of salary and on recording that
they are in employment, the Zilla Parishad should have
refrained from unilaterally disengaging the petitioners without
praying for the vacating of the interim orders or without
seeking permission from the Court. To the extent of such
disengagement from 03.06.2019 onwards, the petitioners will
6 901-WP.12706-18.odt
have to be given the benefit of salary since they were
disengaged despite our orders.
11. In Chetan Nivrutti Mahajan (supra), this Court had
considered the Government Resolution dated 28.08.2017 by
which such Special Technical Officers were engaged and the
Government Resolution indicates that the services of such
officers has been continued till 31.07.2022. Even in Gajanan
Hanmantrao Deshmukh an identically placed employee namely
Mr. Vishal Dattatraya Kadam was granted reinstatement under
the orders of the Additional Commissioner before whom he
had questioned his disengagement. A third employee similarly
situated, namely Mr. Divekar was also granted reinstatement,
though he subsequently resigned from the said post. This
Court, therefore, partly allowed the petition filed by Gajanan
Hanmantrao Deshmukh and while granting him reinstatement,
back wages were denied since he admittedly was not granted
any relief by this Court and he was never in employment till
the judgment dated 05.08.2021 was delivered in his case. In
the case in hand, the petitioners were reinstated in April 2019
and when the orders of this Court directing wages to be paid if
they were working, the Zilla Parishad ought not to have
7 901-WP.12706-18.odt
unilaterally terminated them.
12. In the above backdrop, we are of the view that these
petitioners would be entitled for back wages from June 2019.
We have considered the submissions of the learned advocates
for the respective parties on the quantum of back wages. The
petitioners were kept away from work from June 2019. This
was in-voluntary unemployment. In the affidavit filed by
Anandkumar Saudagar Mirgane, B.D.O. (MGNREGA) Zilla
Parishad, Jalna, it is submitted that these petitioners did not
report for duties after June 2019.
13. Considering the above factors in totality and keeping in
view that the tax payers' money is being utilized in making
payments of salaries of these persons, that we find it equitable
to grant 60 % back wages from June 2019 / from the day they
have been discontinued in 2019 till their reinstatement.
14. As such, this petition is partly allowed.
15. Similar to the directions in Chetan Nivrutti Mahajan
(supra), these petitioners would be reinstated in service on or
before 01.09.2021 and they would continue in accordance with
8 901-WP.12706-18.odt
the Government Resolution dated 28.08.2017 till 31.07.2022
or till the Government extends such employment by issuance of
further Government Resolution. 60% of their unpaid wages
shall be paid till 31.08.2021, towards back wages.
16. We further direct that in the event, the Government
takes a decision with regard to the regularization of similar
employees, these petitioners would be entitled to seek such
benefits depending upon the policy decision of the State
Government.
17. The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that she
would circulate the Contempt Petition No.106 of 2020 before
the appropriate Bench and the petitioners would withdraw the
same within two weeks from today.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
...
vmk/-
