Sunita Narayan Chaudhari And ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 10954 Bom

                                                                 wp10975.17
                                        1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                    WRIT PETITION NO.10975 OF 2017


 Sunita Narayan Chaudhari
 and others.
                                                       ...PETITIONERS
        VERSUS

 The State of Maharashtra
 and another.
                                                       ...RESPONDENTS

                   ...
      Mr.Parag V. Barde Advocate for Petitioners.
      Mrs.V.N. Patil-Jadhav, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
      Mr.V.S. Bedre Advocate for Resp. No.1.
                   ...

                CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
                        Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.


                 DATE :        18th OCTOBER, 2022

 ORDER :

1. Learned AGP wants to take instructions. So also learned

Advocate Mr. Bedre for respondent No.2 submits that he has

instructions to state that once again the Corporation has

forwarded the proposal to the State Government and he also

wants to take instructions.

wp10975.17

2. It can be seen from the record that the decision has

already been rendered in favour of the petitioners by the

Industrial Court, Ahmednagar on 17th July 2013 and it has been

upheld by this Court in Writ Petition No.17 of 2014 and other

companion matters, by Judgment dated 16 th November 2015.

The order of the Industrial Court specifically states that the

respondents therein should cease and desist from engaging in

unfair labour practices by granting the complainants permanency

with effect from April 2012 along with necessary benefits

attached to the post of Nurse. In fact conditional order was

passed and it was directed that the permanency and necessary

benefits have to be accorded within a period of one month, and

that order was when upheld by this Court, still till today it has

not been implemented. In the meantime the petitioners appear

to have approached this Court by way of filing Contempt

Petitions and by order dated 10th February 2017, in view of the

fact that the Municipal Corporation has then forwarded the

proposal, it was observed:-

" The competent authority can, therefore, take this decision while deciding the proposals and can grant regularization based on seniority considering the nature of work and posts available. Considering that the competent authority has been granted four months to decide the proposals upon it's

wp10975.17

receipt, it is expected that the said direction would be complied with. "

. In spite of this, it appears that vide communication letter

dated 8th May 2017 the Government refused to accommodate

and grant approval. No doubt, that is the communication, which

is under challenge in the Petition. However, it appears that the

Government is unnecessarily taking time. Since, now statement

is made that again the proposal is sent by respondent No.2 to

respondent No.1, then we hope that the concerned authority

would consider the decisions in favour of the petitioners, the

finality that has been achieved to it and take that decision within

THREE MONTHS from today, if the proposals are reached to the

Government.

3. Place the matter for further consideration on 30 th January

2023.

 [Y.G. KHOBRAGADE]                   [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
       JUDGE                                   JUDGE

 asb/OCT22