Bombay High Court
Anil S/O Pralhad Lande vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ... on 20 December, 2023
Author: Anuja Prabhudessai
Bench: Anuja Prabhudessai
2023:BHC-NAG:17627-DB
1 WP5290.22 (J).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5290 OF 2022
PETITIONER : Anil S/o Pralhad Lande,
Aged about 60 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Kusumkot, Tah. Dharni,
Dist. Amravati.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1] State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Agriculture,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2] The Divisional Agriculture Joint Director,
Amravati Division, Amravati,
Krushi Sankul, Vidyapeeth Road,
Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
3] The District Superintending Agriculture
Officer, Vishwas Colony,
Amravati, Tah. & Dist. Amravati.
4] Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer,
Achalpur, Tah. Achalpur,
Dist. Amravati.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anup S. Dhore, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. Kalyani R. Deshpande, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI and
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 20, 2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER - Smt. Anuja Prabhudessai, J.)
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned advocates for the parties.
2 WP5290.22 (J).odt
2. By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks direction against respondent
nos.3 and 4 to release and pay the retiral benefits including pension,
provident fund, group insurance amount etc. as admissible as per rules
in favour of the petitioner on account of his pensionable service, till the
date of his superannuation on 30.06.2021.
3. The petitioner was appointed as 'Chaukidar' with
respondent no.4 - Superintendent, Fruit Produce Officer, Amravati
Department, Amravati on temporary basis. It is the case of the
petitioner that his services were terminated on 31.05.1991 without
following due process of law. The petitioner challenged said
termination by filing Complaint (ULP) No. 104/1991 before the
Labour Court, Amravati and by interim order dated 15.10.1991, the
petitioner was directed to be reinstated. The petitioner continued to be
in service of respondent no.4 till the date of his superannuation on
30.06.2021.
4. Prior to his superannuation, the petitioner has filed
Complaint (ULP) No. 13/2014 under Section 28 read with Item I of
Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act of 1971') before the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Amravati
3 WP5290.22 (J).odt
Bench, alleging that the respondent-employer had indulged in unfair
labour practice. The petitioner has claimed that his appointment was
on a clear vacant post. He has stated that his services were regularized
and that he was was in permanent service from 02.04.1992. The
petitioner has sought regularization w.e.f. 19.02.1986.
5. The petitioner has raised a grievance vide communication
dated 07.07.2021 for not releasing his retiral benefits. Respondent
nos.3 and 4 vide communication dated 22.05.2022 informed the
petitioner that his retiral benefits cannot be released in view of
pendency of Complaint ULP No. 13/2021 claiming regularization of
service from 19.02.1986. The petitioner has approached this Court in
writ jurisdiction being aggrieved by the said communication.
6. The record indicates that during pendency of this petition,
the Industrial Court has disposed of the Complaint (ULP) No. 13/2014,
by the judgment dated 07.08.2023, wherein the Industrial Court has
recorded a finding that the petitioner is a regular employee w.e.f.
02.04.1992 and rejected his claim for regularization of his service from
19.02.1986.
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader states that the State
has not challenged the judgment dated 07.08.2023 in Complaint
4 WP5290.22 (J).odt
(ULP) No.13/2014. The said judgment viz-a-viz other documents
placed on record, particularly salary slip, seniority list and other
communications, clearly indicate that the petitioner is a regular
employee w.e.f. 02.04.1992. In such circumstances, the petitioner is
entitled for retiral benefits with effect from the said date i.e. 02.04.1992.
8. In view of above, respondent nos.3 and 4 are directed to
release and pay the retiral benefits, including pension, provident fund,
group insurance etc. as admissible as per rules from 02.04.1992 in
favour of the petitioner till the date of his superannuation on
30.06.2021.
9. Rule is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of.
No order as to costs.
(VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)
Diwale
Signed by: DIWALE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 26/12/2023 14:39:53
