Bombay High Court
Vasant Sukhdev Hatagale vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 31 August, 2021
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, S. G. Mehare
*1* 916wp1460o18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1460 OF 2018
VASANT SUKHDEV HATAGALE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Shri Karne G. J.
AGP for Respondents 1 to 3 : Shri S.R. Yadav Lonikar
Advocate for Respondent 4 : Shri A.M. Gaikwad
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
S.G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATE :- 31st August, 2021
Per Court :-
1. We have heard this matter at length. We have
considered the extensive submissions of the learned advocate for
the petitioner. He has only one single argument to advance and
i.e. he belongs to "Matang" caste and according to him, this is
covered by the Lad Page Committee recommendations
applicable to the persons who belong to the reserved category i.e.
Walmiki, Mehatar, etc. castes.
2. Shri Gaikwad, the learned advocate, has pointed out
*2* 916wp1460o18
the Government Resolution dated 23.03.2006 in which, the
Government of Maharashtra has specifically observed in clause
11(6) and clause 18 that those employees, who are otherwise
eligible for the Lad Page Committee recommendation benefits
("Vashila Paddhat/ Shifaras"), would be disentitled only if the
parent of such candidate was appointed on 10.03.1993 or prior
thereto as "Safai Kamgar" on daily wages and who has been
regularized in employment as a special case by creating a
supernumerary post. There is no dispute that the father of the
petitioner was an employee, who was appointed on 01.04.1991
as a special case and was regularized on 31.01.2002 by creating a
supernumerary post. Consequentially, the case of the petitioner
would be covered by clauses 11 and 18 of the Government
Resolution dated 23.03.2006, which would operate as a
disqualification clause.
3. The learned advocate for the petitioner has cited
before us certain orders passed by the coordinate Bench of this
Court, which are as follows :-
(a) Order dated 01.08.2016 passed in Writ Petition
No.1822/2015 filed by Sakhubai wd/o Gorakh Agale versus the
State of Maharashtra and others.
*3* 916wp1460o18
This judgment is squarely on the ground that the
widow has approached this Court as her husband died in harness
and was, therefore, eligible for compassionate appointment.
(b) Order dated 20.09.2019 passed in Writ Petition
No.7109/2018 filed by Shaikh Yusuf Shaikh Yunus versus the
State of Maharashtra and others.
In this case, the issue of persons belonging to
Walmiki, Mehetar, Bhangi, etc. categories was considered in the
backdrop of the parents working as "Safai Kamgar". The issue of
parents having been regularized as a one time arrangement by
creating supernumerary posts, was not before this Court.
Both the above judgments are, therefore, not
applicable to the case of the petitioner.
4. We were to conclude this order by dismissing this
petition. However, Shri Karne, learned advocate for the
petitioner, submits that he may be granted some time to point out
judicial pronouncement, which rescues his case from the
Government Resolution dated 23.03.2006.
5. When we called upon Shri Karne to suggest how
much time he wants for research, he has put forth a very
unreasonable request by saying that he wants six weeks time. We
*4* 916wp1460o18
are rejecting this request and we are posting this matter on
08.09.2021 as "part-heard" for further submissions.
kps (S.G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
