Bombay High Court
Arun Ramlal Gujlekar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 25 July, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep Vishnupant Marne
1 wp8047.21 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8047 OF 2021
Arun Ramlal Gujlekar,
Age; 46 years, Occ; Nil,
R/o; House No. 4-12-39, Near Mewad
Lodge, Nageshwarwadi, Aurangabad,
Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 032.
2. The Aurangabad Municipal Corporation
Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad
(Through its Commissioner)
3. The Deputy Commissioner,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
4. The Establishment Officer-1,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Vivek J.Dhage and Mr.D.A.Karnik
AGP for Respondent No. 1-State : Mrs. R.P.Gaur
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. A.R.Vaidya
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SANDEEP V. MARNE JJ.
2 wp8047.21 Judgment
DATE : 25th JULY, 2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER :- MANGESH S. PATIL - J.]
1. Heard the learned Advocates for the contesting parties
and the learned A.G.P.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is
taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.
3. The petitioner was appointed on daily wages, as Junior
Clerk in the year 1998. His services were continued from time to
time. However, by resolution dated 21 December 2015, the other
employees were continued, but the proposal of the petitioner was not
forwarded. Since thereafter he is out of the employment. Time and
again he made representations, but the same were not considered
favourably. The Government subsequently took a decision to
regularize the daily wagers on the establishment of the respondent
Corporation, by a decision dated 28 September 2020 and the
petitioner may not be deprive from receiving the benefits when he had
put in 17 years of service due to some delay, which is derived by
similarly situated persons.
4. The learned Advocate Mr. Dhage, for the petitioner would
3 wp8047.21 Judgment
submit that considering the stand being taken by respondent Nos. 2
to 4 in the affidavit-in-reply, it is by way of punishment that the
petitioner has not been allowed to continue. Some delay may be
overlooked in the interest of justice, since it is a matter of
employment.
5. The learned Advocate Mr. Vaidya, for respondent Nos. 2
to 4 submits that the petitioner had voluntarily remained absent from
the duty, as can be demonstrated from his representations. He had
accepted the situation as he had not approached this Court promptly,
when the others were regularized. There is no justification or
explanation for the delay in the Writ Petition and his request may not
be considered.
6. It is trite that while exercising the writ jurisdiction,
though strictly speaking the delay may not be decisive, it is
imperative for the petitioner to come out with some explanation as to
which circumstances have prevented him from approaching the
Court and seeking the remedy. Precisely for these reasons even while
issuing notices to the other side the issue of delay and latches was
kept open.
7. The petition is absolutely devoid of any explanation.
4 wp8047.21 Judgment
Since 2015 the petitioner has been aware that he was not continued.
He never approached this Court. He kept making representations.
The last such representation was made in the year 2019. Even
thereafter, he took another couple of years to approach this Court.
8. It is after a long slumber the petitioner is approaching
this Court, in all probability, in view of supervening event wherein the
other daily wagers have been regularized by the respondent
Corporation on 28 September 2020.
9. The Writ Petition suffers from delay and latches and is
dismissed.
10. Rule is discharged.
( SANDEEP V. MARNE ) ( MANGESH S. PATIL )
JUDGE JUDGE
mahajansb/
