Ravi Tale And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1971 Bom

                                                                  29 wp2402-21.docx

       Digitally
       signed by
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
       TRUSHA
TRUSHA TUSHAR
TUSHAR MOHITE
MOHITE Date:
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
       2023.03.01
       19:12:47
       +0530



                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 2402 OF 2021

                    Dr.Ravi K. Tale and Ors.                         ..... Petitioners

                             Vs.

                    The State of Maharashtra and Ors.                ..... Respondents


                    Mr.Kranti L.C. for the Petitioners

                    Mr.B.V.Samant, A.G.P. for the State

                                              CORAM:     S.V.GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &
                                                         SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                              DATED :    FEBRUARY 28, 2023

                    P.C.

                    1        The Petitioners seek direction to forthwith allow the Petitioner

Nos.1, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 to resume their services at the Health

Facilities, where they were originally posted at and terminated from,

so also, for the relief challenging the letter dated 05.01.2021 to the

extent that it provides for dispensing with the Petitioners services

on the resumption of duty by a regular Government candidate at the

said post. Further directions were sought with regard to the

remuneration.

2 Earlier, the Petitioners had filed Writ Petition No.5119 of

2019. The Division Bench of this court under order dated

Mohite 1/4 29 wp2402-21.docx

11.08.2020 disposed of the Writ Petition with certain directions.

This Court, under the said judgment, set aside the order of

termination of the Petitioners. It was further observed that if the

National Health Mission has been extended beyond 31.03.2020

there being admittedly requirement of 44 contractual dental

surgeons, there can be no justifiable reason to discontinue the

contractual employment of the Petitioners and at the same time, to

hold a recruitment process for selecting and appointing another set

of contractual dental surgeons replacing the Petitioners. The court

also observed that the ad-hoc or temporary employee cannot be

replaced by another ad-hoc or temporary employee. He must be

replaced only by a regularly selected employee.

3 The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the

Petitioners were reinstated in service. They were posted at far away

place and not at the place they were appointed earlier. The learned

counsel submits that remuneration has also been scaled down to

Rs.30,000/- pm. The Petitioners were earlier receiving more than

Rs.38,000/- pm. The learned counsel submits that rationalization

will have to be applied for the said purpose. The learned counsel

placed reliance upon the communication dated 05.10.2020.

Mohite                                                        2/4
                                                 29 wp2402-21.docx

4        The learned A.G.P. submits that particular budget is provided

for appointment under National Health Mission.                Post is also

earmarked. If the Petitioners are to be paid more, then budgetary

provision would go haywire. Payment certainly will have to be made

in tune with the policy as is spelt-out under communication dated

05.10.2020 (page 233).

5 As far as posting of the Petitioners at a particular place is

concerned, the same would be in tune with the availability of the

work. If the work is available at the place where the Petitioners were

originally appointed, the Petitioners would represent the authority

in that regard. The authority would consider the said representation

in its correct perspective. The Petitioners cannot claim posting by

replacement of regularly appointed candidates.

6 Be that as it may, in the earlier round of litigation, the order is

already passed by this Court directing that the Petitioners cannot be

replaced by other contractual employees. The said order holds the

field and has become final. Respondents shall pay the salary to the

Petitioners in tune with the policy as is communicated under order

dated 05.10.2020 (page 233) from the date the Petitioners are

reinstated. Arrears be paid within a period of four months.

Mohite                                                              3/4
                                            29 wp2402-21.docx

7        Writ Petition is disposed of.



(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J)                    (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)




Mohite                                                         4/4