Sambhu S/O Shripad Madavi And ... vs State Of Maha. Thr. Chief ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5701 Bom

WP 1092-2021                                 1         Judgment

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                  WRIT PETITION NO. 1317 OF 2021
1.   Sambhu s/o Shripad Madavi,
     aged about 50 years, Occ. Vanmajdoor,
     R/o Mul, District Chandrapur.

2.   Patru s/o Tanu Kinake,
     aged about 56 years, Occ. Vanmajdoor,
     R/o Mul, District Chandrapur.

3.   Suresh s/o Maroti Thakre,
     aged about 53 years, Occ. Vanmajdoor,
     R/o Mul, District Chandrapur.

4.   Murlidhar s/o Dadaji Mohurle,
     aged about 49 years, Occ. Vanmajdoor,
     R/o Mul, District Chandrapur.

5.   Ravikishor s/o Gulab Khobragade,
     aged about 52 years, Occ. Vanmajdoor,
     R/o Mul, District Chandrapur.

6.   Giridhar s/o Namdeo Nagose,
     aged about 51 years, Occ. Vanmajdoor,
     R/o Mul, District Chandrapur.

7.   Rafik s/o Mustaq Sheikh,
     aged about 60 years, Occ. Vanmajdoor,
     R/o Mul, District Chandrapur.

8.   Manohar s/o Sonba Soyam,
     aged about 48 years, Occ. Vanmajdoor,
     R/o Chichpalli, District Chandrapur.

9.   Purushottam s/o Rajeshwar Wadhai,
     aged about 56 years, Occ. Vanmajdoor,
     R/o Chichapalli, District Chandrapur.
                                                   PETITIONERS
                                .....VERSUS.....
1.   State of Maharashtra,
     through its Chief Secretary (Forest),
     Department of Revenue & Forests,
     Mantralaya, Mumbai - 440001.
 WP 1092-2021                                   2                     Judgment

2.   Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
     (Head of Forest Forest),
     Van Bhawan (M.S.), Civil Lines, Nagpur.

3.   Deputy Conservator of Forests,
     Divisional Forest Office, Chandrapur,
     Forest Division, Tahsil Chandrapur,
     District Chandrapur.

4.   Range Forest Officer,
     Mul, Tahsil Mul, District Chandrapur.

5.   Range Forest Officer,
     Chichapalli, Tahsil & District Chandrapur.
                                                               RESPONDENTS

            Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, Advocate for the petitioners.
            Ms. K.R. Deshpande, A.G.P. for the respondents/ State.


CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI - PHALKE, JJ.

DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

CIVIL APPLICATION (W) NO. 382/2022.

The prayer made in the application is granted. The names of

the applicants are permitted to be substituted in place of petitioner No.2,

who has expired. The amendment be carried out forthwith.

The Civil Application is disposed of.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1317/2021.

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned

Counsel for the parties.

WP 1092-2021 3 Judgment

2. The challenge raised in this Writ Petition is to the judgment

passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 03/01/2020 in

Original Application Nos. 877/2017, 880/2017, 107/2018 and

108/2018. In these Original Applications, the orders dated 22/03/2017

passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Chandrapur refusing the

regularized services of the petitioners came to be passed.

3. It is an undisputed position that the present petitioners had

earlier approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing

Original Application Nos. 614/2013, 615/2013 and 616/2013. By order

dated 14/02/2017, the learned Member while deciding these Original

Applications passed the following operative order :

"7. For the foregoing, these O.As are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to act in accordance herewith and to reconsider the case of the applicants for regularization as Forest Labourers in accordance with the G.R. of 16.10.2012 from Revenue and Forest Department bearing always in mind the observation hereinabove. If the time limit is not kept and appropriate decision in accordance herewith is not taken within six weeks, then the applicants shall stand regularised and the respondents shall take appropriate action in that behalf. No order as to costs."

4. Pursuant to that order, the respondents considered the cases

of the petitioners - original applicants and on 22/03/2017 passed an

order holding therein that since the original applicants did not fulfill the

criteria prescribed by the Government Resolution dated 16/10/2012, they WP 1092-2021 4 Judgment

were not entitled to relief of regularization of their services.

5. The petitioners being aggrieved by that order again filed

Original Applications before the Tribunal. The petitioners sought setting

aside of the orders dated 22/03/2017 passed by the respondents refusing

to regularize their services. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal

proceeded to pass the following operative order :

"1. All these O.As. Are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to act in accordance herewith and to reconsider the case of the applicants for regularization as Forest Labourers in accordance with the G.R. of 16.10.2012 from Revenue and Forest Department within a period of four months from the date of this order by giving personal hearing to the applicants and showing them the relevant records.

2. No order as to costs."

The said judgment is impugned in the present Writ Petition.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well

as the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

7. According to the petitioners, there was no justification on part

of the Tribunal in directing the respondents to reconsider the cases of the

petitioners for regularization by taking into consideration the Government

Resolution dated 16/10/2012. This exercise was already conducted while WP 1092-2021 5 Judgment

deciding the earlier Original Applications. Since, the petitioners had

discharged duties for more than 20 years, they were entitled for the relief

of regularization.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the

respondents on the other hand submitted that the relief as prayed for

could be sought before the Industrial Court, the Tribunal was justified in

not granting the relief as prayed for. Hence, no interference in the

impugned judgment is warranted.

8. On hearing the learned Counsel, we find that in the earlier

round of litigation, the Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider

the claim of the petitioners for grant of regularization in light of the

Government Resolution dated 16/10/2012. That exercise was undertaken

by the respondents after which the orders dated 22/03/2017 came to be

passed. In the subsequent Original Applications challenging the orders

dated 22/03/2017, the Tribunal ought to have considered the Original

Applications on merits of the challenge as raised. Perusal of the judgment

of the Tribunal indicates that except for referring to the rival submissions,

it has not considered the challenge to the orders dated 22/03/2017.

Instead, the proceedings have again been remanded with a direction to

the respondents to reconsider the case for regularization in terms of WP 1092-2021 6 Judgment

Government Resolution dated 16/10/2012. This exercise having already

been undertaken, it was not necessary to further direct the same exercise

to be undertaken. The Tribunal ought to have gone into the challenge to

the orders dated 22/03/2017 and ought to have decide the Original

Applications accordingly. Since the same has not been done, the

impugned judgment is rendered unsustainable.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment dated 03/01/2020

passed in Original Application Nos. 877/2017, 880/2017, 107/2018 and

108/2018 is set aside. The Original Applications are restored before the

Tribunal for deciding the same in accordance with the prayers made

therein and especially, the challenge to the orders dated 22/03/2017. All

grounds of challenge as well as the grounds of defence are kept open

before the Tribunal. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the

correctness of the orders dated 22/03/2017 and the Tribunal shall decide

the proceedings on their own merits. The proceedings before the Tribunal

are expedited.

10. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

(URMILA JOSHI - PHALKE, J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

Digitally signed bySUMIT CHETAN AGRAWAL SUMIT Signing Date:23.06.2022 14:19