Bombay High Court
Maharashtra State Road Transport ... vs Suresh Tukaram Valivkar And ... on 3 April, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
1 18 & 35. WP.3129-15 WITH WP.1450-19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3129 OF 2015
( Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Thr. The Divisional
Controller, MSRTC, Wardha.
Vs.
Abdul Bashir S/o Sk. Mehaboob )
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1450 OF 2019
( Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Thr. Its Divisional
Controller, Division Akola.
Vs.
Suresh Tukaram Valivkar & Ors. )
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mr. V.H. Kedar, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP No. 3129/2015
Mr. C.V. Jagdale, Advocate for the Respondent/sole in WP No. 3129/2015.
Mr. P.S. Gawai, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP No. 1450/2019.
Mr. C.V. Jagdale, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, 6 to 10 in
WP No. 1450/2019.
CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATED : 3rd APRIL, 2023
WRIT PETITION NO. 3129 OF 2015
Heard Mr. Kedar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Jagdale, learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. The petition challenges the judgment dated
06.01.2014 passed by the learned Industrial Court,
2 18 & 35. WP.3129-15 WITH WP.1450-19.odt
Nagpur, declaring that the respondent/complainant is
entitled to the benefit of difference between temporary
time scale and regular time scale, on completion of 180
days with consequential benefits. In the instant case, it is
not disputed by Mr. Jagdale, learned counsel for the
respondent, that the respondent/complainant had
completed 180 days on 22.11.1991, though the date
22.11.1990 is stated in the complaint and the impugned
judgment, which according to him is incorrect, the
correct date being 22.11.1991.
3. Mr. Kedar, learned counsel for the petitioner
contends, that in view of the Settlement of the year 1985
and the Circular dated 06.02.2009 which was issued in
pursuance to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs.
Premlal, 2007 (113) FLR 451, the respondents, were
entitled to the regular time scale, from the date of their
selection by the Selection Committee and a vacant post
being available, and not on the date of completion of 180
days.
4. Mr. Kedar, learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits, that the respondent was put on regular
time scale with effect from 01.10.1995, which would
indicate that it is at that point of time the selection of
respondent was made by the Selection Committee on a
regular vacancy being in existence, and therefore, the
respondent was not entitled to the benefit of regular time
scale immediately on completion of 180 days i.e., from
3 18 & 35. WP.3129-15 WITH WP.1450-19.odt
22.11.1991.
5. Mr. Jagdale, learned counsel for the
respondent submits, that immediately on completion of
180 days, the respondent/complainant is entitled to the
regular time scale and not otherwise, and therefore,
supports the impugned judgment.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Premlal (supra),
has categorically held, that the entitlement of all benefits
admissible to a regular employee working in MSRTC
would be admissible, subject to the eligibility criteria of
having worked for aggregate service of 180 days and
subject to their satisfying all the conditions prescribed for
their entitlement in terms of the Resolution No. 8856
read with Clause 19 of the 1985 settlement. It is
therefore apparent, that an employee is not automatically
entitled for regular time scale on completion of 180 days
as the entitlement is clearly subject to the satisfaction of
the conditions prescribed in Resolution No. 8856 read
with Clause 19 of the Settlement of 1985. Clause 19 (i)
of the Settlement of 1985, as quoted in para 6 (page 22)
of the complaint itself indicates, that the absorption of
the daily rated workman after completion of service of
180 days, would be subject to selection by the Competent
Committee and availability of vacancies.
7. This would clearly indicate, that the grant of
regular time scale is not automatic on the completion of
180 days but it would be subject to selection by the
4 18 & 35. WP.3129-15 WITH WP.1450-19.odt
committee and availability of vacancies. In the instant
case, it is not disputed by Mr. Jagdale, learned counsel
for the respondent, that the regular time scale was
applicable to the respondent on 01.10.1995, which
would indicate, that it is on this date the requirement of
Clause 19(i) of the Settlement of 1985 stood complied
with. This being the position, the respondent
/complainant was entitled to the regular time scale only
from 01.10.1995 and not otherwise. The impugned
judgment of the learned Industrial Court, Nagpur which
grants him the benefit of the regular time scale
automatically on completion of 180 days, is therefore
clearly contrary to what has been held in Premlal (supra)
as well as Clause 19 (i) of the Settlement of 1985 and so
also Clause 4 of the Circular dated 06.02.2009 which is
in consonance with what has been stated above. In that
view of the matter, the impugned judgment cannot be
sustained and is hereby quashed and set aside and the
complaint of the respondent is dismissed. No costs.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1450 OF 2019
In Writ Petition No. 1450/2019, the same
proposition of law as discussed above will govern the
position and the respondents, will be entitled to the
benefit of regular pay scale from the date of their
selection by the Selection Committee and the existence of
the vacancy, which is what has been directed by the
learned Industrial Court, Akola in its judgment dated
05.02.2016 (page 51), as it is not disputed that the dates
5 18 & 35. WP.3129-15 WITH WP.1450-19.odt
as mentioned in Column No. 4 in the Schedule as
attached with the complaint is the date on which the
respondents were put on regular time scale on account of
their selection by the committee.
2. Writ Petition No. 1450/2019 is therefore
disposed of in the above terms.
JUDGE
SD. Bhimte
