Shaikh Jahiroddin Shaikh ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10128 Bom

                                           1                 wp7186.19 Judgment.docx



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 7186 OF 2019


         Shaikh Jahiroddin Shaikh Nasiroddin,
         Age; 65 years, Occ; Retired,
         R/o; Sompuri, Taluka Paithan,
         District Aurangabad.                                    ...PETITIONER


                     VERSUS

1.       The State of Maharashtra,
         Through Secretary,
         Department of Rural Development,
         Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2.       The Chief Executive Officer,
         Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.                           ...RESPONDENTS



                          ....................................
       Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. S.S.Thombre h/f Mr. B.S. Bhale
            AGP for the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. M.A. Deshpande
          Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Kartik D. Mundhe
                          ....................................


                                     CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
                                             SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.

DATE : 03.10.2022

JUDGMENT : [PER : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

1. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

learned Advocates for the respective parties, heard finally at the stage

of admission.

2 wp7186.19 Judgment.docx

2. The petition is filed for extension of the benefits envisaged

under order dated 13.12.2017 in favour of the petitioner. He also prays

for release of amount of pension and other retirement benefits. By

order dated 13.12.2017, 108 Converted Regular Temporary

Establishment (for short 'CRTE') employees of the Zilla Parishad,

Aurangabad have been granted the benefits of pay and allowances in

the applicable pay scales w.e.f. the dates of their initial appointments.

The petitioner's name does not included in the order 13.12.2017 only

on account of the fact that he was placed under suspension by the

order dated 20.01.2011 and continued to remain under suspension till

he attained age of superannuation on 31.10.2013. The short question

that arises before us is whether, mere suspension would disentitle him

to similar benefits granted to his colleagues by the order dated

13.12.2017.

3. Facts of the case are in narrow compass. The petitioner was

working as daily wage worker in the Water Supply Department of Zilla

Parishad, Aurangabad. The exact date of his initial engagement is not

disclosed in the petition. By the order dated 06.03.2009, several daily

wage workers including the petitioner were brought on CRTE from

01.07.2006. Upon being brought on CRTE, he became entitled to be

paid the salary and allowances in the pay scales of Rs. 2550-55-2660-

3200 w.e.f. 01.07.2006.

4. The petitioner was placed under suspension by the order

3 wp7186.19 Judgment.docx

dated 20.01.2011, on account of FIR being registered against him with

regard to an incident unconnected with performance of duties. The

suspension continued till he attended the age of superannuation on

31.10.2013. On 13.12.2017, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad issued order in

pursuance of the judgment and order dated 18.11.2016 passed in Writ

petition No. 6666 of 2006 by this Court, counting the services of 108

CRTE employees from the dates of their initial engagements. It was

directed that they would be entitled to be paid difference of salary from

the dates of their initial engagements till the date on which they were

brought on CRTE. On account of his suspension the petitioner's name

was not included in that order. If the petitioner was not under

suspension, he would be granted benefits of counting his services from

the date of his initial engagement till he was brought on CRTE i.e. till

01.07.2006 and would have been granted difference of pay and

allowances during that period.

5. We find that even though the petitioner was placed under

suspension by the order dated 20.01.2011, no decision was taken by

the Zilla Parishad about the revocation of the suspension till he

attained age of superannuation on 31.10.2013. He thus retired while

under suspension. Mere placement under suspension would not severe

employer -employee relationship, which continued till his retirement.

The benefits conferred by the order dated 31.12.2017 are in respect of

past service from the date of initial engagements till 01.07.2006.

Admittedly, during that period the petitioner was not under suspension.

4 wp7186.19 Judgment.docx

Even otherwise, he could not have been placed continue under

suspension for indefinite period, that too in connection with criminal

case having no relevance with performance of the duties.

6. In the result, we find that denial of benefits flowing out of

order dated 13.12.2017 to the petitioner is unsustainable. Since the

employer-employee relationship was not severed in any manner, he

would also be entitled to all the retirement benefits as are paid to the

CRTE employees. We are not made aware about the exact retirement

benefits that a CRTE employee would be entitled to. Therefore we

leave this aspect to the determination of the Respondent Zilla Parishad.

7. Consequently, we allow the petition and direct the Zilla

Parishad, Aurangabad to extend all the benefits flowing out of the order

dated 17.12.2017 to the petitioner. In case, Petitioner being CRTE

employee, is eligible for any retirement benefits, the same shall also be

extended to him and should not be denied only on the ground that he

remained under suspension till his retirement. The consequential

monetary benefits be paid to him within a period of two months from

today. Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. Rule is made absolute.

     ( SANDEEP V. MARNE )                     ( MANGESH S. PATIL )
          JUDGE                                    JUDGE

mahajansb/