Range Forest Officer, Range ... vs Talikram Shriram Nyaykare
2021 Latest Caselaw 4437 Bom

                                         1                               100321wp7766.17.odt


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 7766 OF 2017
                          RANGE FOREST OFFICER AND ANOTHER.
                                       VERSUS
                             TALIKRAM SHRIRAM NYAYKARE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of                           Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Mr. K. L. Dharmadhikari, A.G.P. for the petitioners.
                        Mr. B. C. Chandrikapure, Advocate for the respondent.

                                 CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATE : MARCH 10, 2021.

1. Heard Mr. K. L. Dharmadhikari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioners and Mr. B.C. Chandrikapure, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Gondia in Reference IDA No.04 of 2012, dated 16.05.2014 whereby the learned Judge allowed the Reference in part and directed the petitioners to give reinstatement to the respondent to his original post, however, claim for back wages was rejected. Against rejection of the back wages, the respondent did not file any writ petition and he accepted the said finding.

3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that in view of the Award dated 16.05.2014 , the petitioners have reinstated the respondent and he is discharging his duties and the salaries are being paid to him regularly. This statement is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.

2 100321wp7766.17.odt

4. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the learned Judge of the Labour Court has erred in not considering the fact that at no point of time the respondent has completed 240 days in a year. Therefore, he was not entitled to get permanency. This question need consideration and is to be decided finally.

5. Since, the respondent is being reinstated in service and he is discharging his duties and the petitioners are paying regular salary to him, in my view, this petition can be admitted for final hearing.

6. Hence, RULE.

7. Mr. B.C. Chandrikapure, learned counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent.

8. The petitioners are directed not to take any step that will be prejudicial to the interest of the respondent and shall continue to pay salary regularly as well as other dues to him, during pendency of this writ petition.

                                            JUDGE
Diwale




                                                      Digitally signed

                                          Parag       by Parag
                                                      Diwale

                                          Diwale      Date:
                                                      2021.03.11
                                                      15:48:57 +0530