Bombay High Court
Balu Rambhau Auti vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 10 August, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep V. Marne
1 26wp14095.19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
26 WRIT PETITION NO.14095 OF 2019
BALU RAMBHAU AUTI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH MINISTRY OF PUBLIC
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar
AGP for Respondent No. 1-State : Mr.A.S.Shinde
Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Mr.Deshmukh Bhausaheb S.
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
DATE : 10.08.2022.
PER COURT :
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner challenges
the order dated 07.03.2018, by which the services of the petitioner
have been terminated, with effect from 20.01.2018 on the ground
that the petitioner has been found permanently unfit for the post of
driver, in the findings recorded by the Medical Board, Pune.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that upon being found
medically unfit for the post of driver his services ought not to have
been terminated but he ought to have been provided with suitable
alternate job by the respondent Corporation.
::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2022 12:56:08 :::
2 26wp14095.19
3. The issue is no more res integra and is covered by the
judgment and order dated 16.07.2020 passed by this Court at
Principal Seat in Writ Petition No. 9762 of 2019 in Vikas and Anr.
etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. The said order has been
upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, albeit, with certain
modifications by the order dated 03.11.2020. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has directed that, the respondent Corporation would be under
an obligation to consider the case of the medically unfit employees for
an alternate employment. So far as, the issue of back wages is
concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that the
concerned employees must submit the relevant material along with
their affidavits, as to whether the concerned employees were in
employment during the relevant time or not.
4. In these circumstances, we find that the termination
order is unsustainable and the respondent Corporation is under a
statutory obligation to provide alternate job to the petitioner.
5. We accordingly passed following order :
ORDER
(i) The impugned order dated 07.03.2018
terminating the services of the petitioner is quashed
and set aside.
3 26wp14095.19
(ii) The respondent Corporation is directed to
consider the case of the petitioner for suitable
alternate appointment, within a period of three
months from today.
(iii) So far as, the intervening period from the date
of termination, till the date of offering alternate
appointment is concerned, the petitioner to file
affidavit along with relevant material, to prove as to
whether he was in gainful employment during the
intervening period or not. Depending on the material
so produced, the respondent Corporation to decide
the issue of payment of back wages.
(iv) In the event, if it is found that the petitioner
was not in gainful employment, during the
intervening period, the respondent Corporation shall
pass necessary order in respect of the back wages
and pay the same to petitioner within 3 months of
filing affidavit and material.
(v) The petition accordingly is disposed of. No
costs.
( SANDEEP V. MARNE ) ( MANGESH S. PATIL )
JUDGE JUDGE
mahajansb/
