Krutika Madhukar Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 7596 Bom

                                                      19.10011.21-wpst.odt


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

                        WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.10011/2021


       Krutika Madhukar Patil                          ..... Petitioner

               Vs.

       The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                 ..... Respondents



       Mr. Sanjay Patil for the Petitioner
       Mr. Karan S. Thorat, AGP for the State


                                CORAM:     K.K.TATED &
                                           RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.

                                DATED :    JUNE 8, 2021
                                           (VIDEO CONFERENCING)
       P.C.

       1       Heard.          By this petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the termination order dated 17.03.2021 passed by Respondent No.2 by which the Petitioner's services as Legal Advisor stood terminated.

2 The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that even the Nagpur Bench of this Court, in the matter of Mahesh Suresh Mahamune Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. in Writ Petition No. 5831/2018 by order dated 04.06.2019 granted protection to the Legal Advisor, on the basis of the Government Resolution / directions dated 26.06.2014 (Exhibit-H, page 41 to the petition). He submits

Basavraj G. Patil 1/3

19.10011.21-wpst.odt

that in the present proceedings, the Petitioner was working with Respondent No.2 on contractual basis as a Law Advisor attached to the Collector, Thane. He submits that the Petitioner made an application for permission to work-from- home because of COVID-19 as well as her pregnancy. He submits that, instead of considering the said application, Respondent No.2, by order dated 17.03.2021 terminated the Petitioner's contract as Legal Advisor. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3 On the other hand, the learned AGP for the Respondents has vehemently opposed the Writ Petition. He submits that even the Apex Court, in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Anita & Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos.6132- 33 of 2016 held that the Law Officers who are appointed on contract basis, have no right to claim permanency. In support of this contention, he relies on para 17 of the said judgment, which reads thus:

"17. The High Court did not keep in view the various clauses in the Government Resolution dated 21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006 and also the terms of the agreement entered into by the respondents with the government. Creation of posts was only for administrative purposes for sanction of the amount towards expenditure incurred but merely because the posts were created, they cannot be held to be permanent in nature. When the government has taken a policy decision to fill up 471 posts of Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors on contractual basis, the tribunal and the High Court ought not to have interfered with the policy decision to hold that the appoints are permanent in nature."

Basavraj G. Patil                                                                2/3





                                                  19.10011.21-wpst.odt


       4       Considering these facts, the learned counsel for the

Petitioner seeks some time to take instructions from his client. At his request, Office is directed to place the matter on board 15.06.2021.

5 At this stage, the learned AGP submits that they have already issued an advertisement for appointment of some other person on the post of Legal Advisor. The statement is accepted.

       (RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.)                      (K.K.TATED, J.)




       Basavraj G. Patil                                                      3/3