Bombay High Court
Parasram Ranganath Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 5 September, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2024:BHC-AUG:21096-DB
2185.22wp
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 WRIT PETITION NO. 2185 OF 2022
Parasram s/o. Ranganath Gaikwad,
Age : 57 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Walki, Tq. Nagar,
Dist. Ahmednagar ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Animal Husbandry Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry,
Maharashtra State,
Aundh, Pune-7
3. Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar,
Through its Chief Executive Officer ....RESPONDENTS
....
Mr C. K. Shinde, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr S. K. Tambe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2
Mr S. T. Shelke, Advocate for Respondent No.3
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
AND
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 5th September, 2024
2185.22wp
(2)
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)
1. We are permitting the Petitioner to add prayer clause
(B-1) in view of the submissions. Addition of prayer clause be
carried out forthwith.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally by the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective
sides.
3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that,
since the Petitioner has attained the age of superannuation of 60
years, on 30/06/2024, he is no longer granted any work by
Respondent No.3/ Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar as a 'Part-time
Sweeper' in the Class-IV category. Hence, he is now praying for
the outstanding monthly wages/arrears and for absorption or
compensation in lieu of absorption/retiral benefits/pensionary
benefits/gratuity, etc.
4. The admitted factors in this matter, are as under :-
2185.22wp
(a) The Petitioner has been given work of a Part-time
Sweeper in the Veterinary Hospital (Ik'kqoSn;dh; nok[kkuk) of
the Zilla Parishad at Walki, Taluka and District
Ahmednagar.
(b) He started his work in 1983, with a fixed pay of
Rs.110/- per month. Subsequently, the monthly consolidated
pay was increased to Rs.210/- per month.
(c) From 2009, he started receiving salary @ Rs.1800/-
per month. Since January, 2016, his monthly fixed salary is
Rs.4587/-.
(d) He has attained the age of superannuation on
completion of 60 years and is no longer given such work,
after 30/06/2024.
(e) By the Government Resolution dated 05/05/2016,
issued by the Rural Development Department, Government
of Maharashtra, 25% of the category 'D' employees have
been reduced and the said posts have been abolished.
(f) The Commissioner of the Animal Husbandry
Department, Government of Maharashtra has issued a
Circular dated 24/03/2016, wherein it is provided that
2185.22wp
Part-time Sweepers should be granted adequate wages since
they are working on meager pay. Those working in the
Veterinary Dispensary/Clinic should be paid at least 60% of
the basic pay of Rs.4300/-, which comes to Rs.2850/-.
(g) It is further provided that, with every wage revision
under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, their consolidated
pay should also be revised. So also, 60% of the Dearness
Allowance (D.A.), also became payable. In Clause 12 of
the said Circular, it is mentioned that, those Part-time
Sweepers, who have been working for long tenures, should
be given preference for absorption when it comes to filling
up of posts of 'Attendant' (Parichar) Class-IV category, in
the Department of Animal Husbandry.
5. The District Animal Husbandry Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Ahmednagar has filed an affidavit-in-reply, dated
30/08/2024. It is contended that the said Circular dated
24/03/2016, has been issued in order to streamline the payment of
monthly salary to the Part-time Sweepers in the Zilla Parishads in
the State and to bring uniformity. It is further contended in
2185.22wp
paragraph No.2 that, since the Petitioner is seeking absorption on
the post of the 'Attendant' Class -IV, in the Animal Husbandry
Department under the Zilla Parishad, by virtue of Clause 12 of the
said Circular, the Part-time Sweeper can be absorbed if the post is
vacant in the Animal Husbandry Department, having regard to his
experience, conduct and performance.
6. It is further stated in paragraph No.3 that, the
Government Resolution dated 05/05/2016 was issued and 240
posts of 'Attendant' on the establishment of Ahmednagar Zilla
Parishad have been abolished/reduced from the earlier total posts
of 959. Since 2016, not a single post of 'Attendant' was recruited
by the Zilla Parishad through a regular selection process. It is
then submitted that the Petitioner was working for around 30 to
45 minutes and thereafter, he was free to do any job elsewhere.
7. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that
the work performed by him was sweeping in the Veterinary
Hospital at Walki. By the very nature of the work, it could not
have been completed within 30 to 40 minutes. Cleaning a
veterinary hospital through out the day, requires long duration at a
2185.22wp
Veterinary facility. After working for half day, neither would have
the Zilla Parishad tolerated the Petitioner taking up a job
elsewhere on any Part-time post, nor would the Petitioner get any
job in any establishment since he would not be available for half
day.
8. In the light of the above, the Respondents have taken
a definite stand that, the Petitioner is neither entitled for
regularization with regular pay-scale, nor he can be held eligible
for payment of pension and gratuity.
9. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has submitted
that, since the Petitioner has worked for 41 years from 07/06/1983
till 30/06/2024, it would be a long drawn battle if he was to
continue to litigate for seeking regularization and pensionary
benefits. He, therefore, submits that, the Petitioner is tired of the
long wait for service benefits and would be satisfied if he gets
lumpsum compensation in lieu of regularization, retiral benefits,
pensionary benefits/gratuity, etc.
2185.22wp
10. In the above, we deem it appropriate to refer to the
following judgments :-
I) Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Bhola Singh, (2005) 2
SCC 470;
II) Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi
(3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1;
III) Kurukshetra Central Cooperative Bank Limited Vs.
Mehar Chand and another, (2007) 15 SCC 680;
IV) State of Karnataka and others Vs. G. V.
Chandrashekar, (2009) 4 SCC 342; and
V) Neelima Srivastava Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others, (2021) 17 SCC 693
11. In Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court declined absorption to a Trainee/Apprentice,
concluding that a Trainee or Apprentice is a candidate, who has to
undergo training and there cannot be an automatic absorption.
12. In Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (supra),
the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed framing of a scheme by
way of a policy for facilitating absorption of those employees,
2185.22wp
who have been working for more than a decade as a one time
mode of absorption. The State and the Zilla Parishad contend
before us that, such a scheme cannot be framed for an individual
as like the Petitioner. Moreover, despite the judgment delivered in
Secretary, State of Karnataka (supra), the State of Maharashtra has
not yet come forward with any such scheme in any such
Department, whereby those who have been working for decades,
could be absorbed in employment. We, therefore, deem it
appropriate to suggest that the State Government should consider
introducing an absorption policy for such Part-time Sweepers and
Part-time Attendants/Class-IV employees, working in the Zilla
Parishads in the State of Maharashtra and similar State
instrumentalities.
13. In Kurukshetra Central Cooperative Bank Limited
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that, the Part-time
Sweeper was found necessary and therefore, his services were
required from 1977. It concluded that the concerned Bank
required the services of a Sweeper. The decision of the High
Court in concluding that the Bank can decide whether it requires a
2185.22wp
full time or a Part-time Sweeper, was quashed and set aside.
Being a Bank, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed it to regularize
the appellant if the Bank actually required a full time post of
Sweeper.
14. In State of Karnataka Vs. G. V. Chandrashekar
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded that, if the initial
entering in service was illegal and the recruitment was contrary to
the constitutional scheme, the claim for regularization deserves to
be rejected. In the instant case, the fact that the Zilla Parishad
permitted the Petitioner to work on Part-time post of Sweeper for
41 years, is undisputed. However, since the Petitioner has directly
approached this Court, there is no proof or a conclusion that posts
of 'Sweepers' were vacant and available with the Zilla Parishad
and yet the Petitioner was not regularized in employment.
15. In Neelima Srivastava Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded that, though
temporary, contractual, casual, daily wages employees had no
right to claim regularization, unless an appointment was made in
2185.22wp
terms of relevant service rules governing the appointment by
adherence with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the
only exception is that the incumbent has worked for 10 years on
duly sanctioned post without benefits or protection of any interim
order passed by any Court or Tribunal, and if the appointment of
such employee was not illegal.
16. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Zilla
Parishad has submitted that, after 2016, there has been no
recruitment of a regular 'Attendant' (Parichar) in the Class-IV
category. No post has been filled in. This indicates that though
the Petitioner has been dedicatedly working from 1983, he was
apparently not considered. In our view, when the Petitioner was
working from 1983 as a Part-time Sweeper, and when the above
referred Circular dated 24/03/2016 permitted granting preference
to the Part-time employee, when it came to recruitment on the
post of an 'Attendant', the Petitioner could have been considered.
17. Keeping in view that the State of Maharashtra has
now abolished 25% of the posts of Attendant/ Class IV category,
it would become even more difficult for absorption of the
2185.22wp
Petitioner. So also, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this
case, we do not find it appropriate to direct absorption of the
Petitioner, as a stand alone case. If the Zilla Parishad introduces a
scheme for an absorption of such Part-time Sweepers, who have
been long working with the Zilla Parishads, the said policy
decision would have to be implemented as regards the Zilla
Parishads in the State of Maharashtra. It is a matter of
circumspection, as to how much time would be required for the
State Government to introduce any such policy. Even by
considering Appendix XII (Rule 5) of the Maharashtra Zilla
Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, more
specifically, Clause 3-A (ii) SWEEPER, there is no provision for
granting regularization to a Part-time Sweeper. In short, such a
Part-time Sweeper could only be absorbed in service in the light
of the Circular dated 24/03/2016, issued by the Commissioner of
the Animal Husbandry Department, Maharashtra State, as on date.
18. In view of the peculiar facts recorded as above, we are
inclined to accept the request of the Petitioner that, having worked
for 41 years, now that the Petitioner has become senior citizen and
2185.22wp
he would not receive a single penny for sustaining himself, that
such a case be considered for grant of lumpsum compensation.
19. Recently, in matters, where the employees were
working on the regular establishment for 30 years (Forest
Department), this Court has delivered a verdict on 28/08/2024 in
Writ Petition No. 12935/2023 (Bhagwat Nagraj Patil Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others) and group of matters. We have granted
Rs.10,00,000/- as lumpsum compensation to these Patitioners.
20. Considering that the Petitioner before us was working
for 41 years as a Part-time Sweeper, and since he would not be
entitled for any service benefits after crossing the age of
superannuation, we deem it appropriate to grant a lumpsum
compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- to the Petitioner, in lieu of
regularization, retiral benefits, pensionary benefits, gratuity,
statutory benefits as like the Provident Fund, etc. The said
amount shall be paid by Respondent No.3/Zilla Parishad within a
period of 60 days. We leave it open to the Zilla Parishad, if
permissible in law, to seek grants from the Animal Husbandry
Department, Government of Maharashtra for making such
2185.22wp
payment. However, we make it clear that, this should not be a
ground for not paying the said amount to the Petitioner within 60
days from today.
21. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is partly
allowed. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
sjk
