Monday, 04, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Shri. Narayan Vishwanath Dandge vs The Dean, Bj Medical College, Pune And ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 512 Bom

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 512 Bom
Judgement Date : 10 January, 2024

Bombay High Court

Shri. Narayan Vishwanath Dandge vs The Dean, Bj Medical College, Pune And ... on 10 January, 2024

Author: Avinash G. Gharote

Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, M.S. Jawalkar

2024:BHC-NAG:368-DB

                                             1                 202.WP.3335-2010 JUDGMENT.odt




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                                WRIT PETITION NO. 3335 OF 2010

                      Shri Narayan Vishwanath Dandge,
                      Age Adult, Occ. Service,
                      R/at. 11 Vasumati Co-op. Hsg. Society,
                      Pushpak Park, Aundh,
                      Pune - 411 007.                             PETITIONER

                       Versus

                  1. The Dean,
                     BJ Medical College, Pune - 411 001.

                  2. The State of Maharashtra,
                     Through the Secretary to the
                     Government, in the Medical Education
                     and Drugs Department, Mantralaya,
                     Mumbai - 400 032.                            RESPONDENTS

                -----------------------------------------------
                Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari a/w Ms. Ritu Jog, Advocates for the
                Petitioner.
                Mrs. S.S. Jachak, Addl.GP for the Respondent No.2/State.
                -----------------------------------------------


                                   CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
                                           SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ.

                                   DATED    : 10th JANUARY, 2024


                 ORAL JUDGMENT :- (PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

2 202.WP.3335-2010 JUDGMENT.odt

Heard Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mrs. Jachak, learned Addl.GP for the respondent

No.2/State.

2. The petition questions the impugned judgment

dated 16.07.2008 (page 63) in O.A No. 516/2006 and the order

in review dated 20.03.2009 (page 85) passed by the learned

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur (for short "MAT"),

which rejects the claim of the petitioner for fixation of his salary

by considering his date of appointment as 10.06.1981 and

granting benefits in accordance with that.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, that since this Court by the judgment dated

21.10.2002 in Writ Petition No. 5207/2002 had directed

regularization of the petitioner as a Physicist in the available

post, in pursuance to which by the Government Resolution

dated 05.01.2005, the services of the petitioner were

regularized as a Physicist, he would be entitled to all benefits

considering his date of appointment to be 10.06.1981.

4. Mrs. Jachak, learned Addl.GP for the respondent 3 202.WP.3335-2010 JUDGMENT.odt

No.2/State, supports the judgment of the learned MAT, Nagpur

and contends, that the petitioner is not entitled for such a relief.

5. The following position is not in controversy. The

petitioner who was earlier appointed as Laboratory Technician

Class-II on 15.10.1977 was given adhoc promotion on the post

of Physicist on which he worked from 10.06.1981 to

16.08.1990. This was on the condition that the same shall

continue till the regularly selected candidate from the

Maharashtra Public Service Commission is available. Since, the

regular candidate became available, the petitioner came to be

reverted back to the post of Laboratory Technician on

16.08.1990. This reversion was challenged by the petitioner

before this Court in Writ Petition No. 5207/2002 in which vide

judgment dated 21.10.2002, this Court has set aside the order

of reversion dated 17.07.2000 and directed regularization of the

petitioner as a Physicist in the available post (Page 23).

6. Consequent to the above decision of this Court, the

State issued a Government Resolution on 05.01.2005

regularizing the services of the petitioner as a Physicist on the 4 202.WP.3335-2010 JUDGMENT.odt

following terms.

" 'kklu fu.kZ;&

Jh- ,u-Ogh- naMxs] ^^iz;ksx'kkGk ra=K** ( cS-th-oS|dh; egkfo|ky;] iq.ks ;kauk ,d fo'ks"k ckc Eg.kwu ^^HkkSfrd'kkL=osRrk** ¼oxZ-2½ ;k inkoj 'kkldh; oS|dh; egkfo|ky; o :X.kky;] ukxiwj] ;sFks fu;qDrh ns.;kr ;sr vkgs- rlsp ek- mPp U;k;ky;kP;k U;k; fu.kZ;kuqlkj R;kauk fnukad 10-6-1981 gk HkkSfrd'kkL=osRrk ¼oxZ-2½ inkoj fu;qDrhpk ekuho fnukad nsÅu R;kaP;k lsok R;k fnukadkiklwu [kkyhy vVhaP;k v/khu jkgwu fu;fer dj.;kr ;sr vkgs%& v½ Jh- naMxs ;kauh HkkSfrd'kkL=osRrk ¼oxZ 2½ inkpk dk;ZHkkj izR;{k fLo--r dsY;kP;k fnukaadkiklwu R;kauk R;k inkph osruJs.kh o vuqiafx: ykHk ns; gksrhy-

c½ Jh- naMxs ;kauk HkkSfrd'kkL=osRrk ¼oxZ 2½ inkpk ekuho fnukad ns.;kr vkY;keqGs R;k inkoj izR;{k u dsysY;k lsosps dks.krsgh vkfFkZd ykHk izkIr gks.kkj ukgh-

d½ Jh- naMxs ;kaph HkkSfrd'kkL=osRrk ¼oxZ 2½ inkojhy fu;qDrh vuwlwfpr tkrhlkBh jk[kho vlysY;k inkoj dsyh vlY;kus lnjpk vuq'ks"k iq<s vks<.;kr ;ssÅu ;k inkP;k iq<hy ljGlsok HkjrhP;k osGh lnjhy vuq'ks"k Hk:u dk<.;kr ;sbZy-"

7. A perusal of the aforesaid terms of regularization

would indicate, that though the services of the petitioner, were

regularized with a notional effect from 10.06.1981, the actual

benefits were denied to him for the duration for which he had

not rendered his services.

8. This would clearly indicate to us, that the petitioner 5 202.WP.3335-2010 JUDGMENT.odt

would be entitled to all the benefits available to him on account

of the regularization of his services, notionally from 10.06.1981.

Though the actual benefits have been denied for the period for

which he has not worked, that would only mean that the

petitioner would be deprived of his salary, HRA, DA etc., for the

said duration, however that would not come in the way of the

fixation of the salary of the petitioner in accordance of the set

norms as the services of the petitioner are held to be continuous

from 10.06.1981.

9. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned

MAT, Nagpur indicates, that it has tried to travel behind the

judgment of this Court dated 21.10.2002 which directs

regularization of the services of the petitioner, consequent to

which, the same has been done with effect from 10.06.1981. In

the said circumstances, the impugned judgment dated

16.07.2008 passed by the learned MAT, Nagpur as well as the

order in review dated 20.03.2009 are hereby quashed and set

aside and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to all benefits

which would be admissible to him considering his appointment

as dated 10.06.1981.

6 202.WP.3335-2010 JUDGMENT.odt

10. The Petition is accordingly allowed.

11. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

12. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of

accordingly.

(SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

S.D.Bhimte

Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 11/01/2024 16:05:06

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter