Bombay High Court
Dr. Bhagaban S/O Narayan Panda vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 21 October, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
1 wp1983.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1983 OF 2017
(DR. BHAGABAN S/O. NARAYAN PANDA...VS..STATE OF MAH. THR. ITS SEC. HIGHER &
TECHNICAL EDUCATION & OTH.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.R.Puri, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms Mayuri Deshmukh, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Shri S.N.Dongre, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATED : OCTOBER 21, 2021.
1. After hearing this matter for quite sometime,
prima-facie, it appears to us that this petition is not
maintainable before this Court as the relief sought, which
is about regularization of the services on the petitioner
and conferment of permanency of him is already granted
to the petitioner by the judgment and order dated
26/06/2015, delivered by Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal in bunch of Original Applications, including
Original Application No.781 of 2013 in which the
petitioner was Original Applicant No.15.
2. The relief claimed by the petitioner here as
per prayer clause (a) reads as under:
"(a) By issuing a writ of Mandamus, or
any other appropriate writ, order or
direction, direct the respondents to
regularized the services of the petitioner
by giving effect of permanency in services
from the date of his initial appointment,
along with all consequential benefits;"
2 wp1983.17
The operative part of the judgment delivered
by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, so far as
prayer clause (a) is concerned, reads as below:
"The Respondents are hereby directed to
regularize the services of the Applicants
Nos. 1 to 13 and 15 to 20 in O.A.
No.781/2013 and the Applicants in OA
290/2015 and 868/2014 and confer
permanency to them. The Respondents
shall absorb the Applicants just referred
to by 31st July 2015 and the said
Applicants will continue in service as
regular employees. ...."
So, prayer clause (a) has already been
granted. There is also another prayer made in prayer
clause (b), which reads as below:
"(b) Direct the respondents to extend the
benefits of permanency to the petitioner
by fixing the seniority from the date of his
initial appointment;"
3. Although, the aforestated judgment of the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal does not speak
anything about seniority, it does direct the respondents to
confer permanency upon the petitioner and it also directs
that the petitioner shall be continued in service as regular
employee, once his absorption in service is approved, as
can be seen from the operative portion of the judgment
reproduced above.
3 wp1983.17
4. These directions, in our view, take care of
even prayer clause (b). These are the reasons why we
have formed prima-facie opinion that this petition is not
maintainable.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks
one week's time to get the instructions from the
petitioner.
6. The request is opposed by the learned counsel
for the intervener i.e. respondent No.3 contending that
since the year 2017, the petitioner is enjoying the benefit
of interim relief and because of which respondent No.3,
inspite of being a candidate selected by Maharashtra
Public Service Commission has not been given any
appointment so far.
7. In the interest of justice, we grant further one
week's time to the petitioner.
8. Put up on 27th October 2021.
(ANIL S.KILOR,J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE,J)
RRaut..
