Bombay High Court
Gajanan S/O Shankar Appa Ukarde vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 29 January, 2025
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2025:BHC-NAG:1012-DB
8-J-WP-2101-19 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.2101 OF 2019
Gajanan s/o Shankar Appa Ukarde
(Dead) Thr. L.Rs.
1. Vidya wd/o Gajanan Ukarde
Aged about 53 years
2. Pratik s/o Gajanan Ukarde
Aged about 32 years.
3. Kajal d/o Gajanan Ukarde
Aged about 30 years
4. Shubham s/o Gajanan Ukarde
Aged about 27 years
All R/o Plot No.25, Bante Layout
Behind Shahu Lawn, Vighnaharta Nagar,
Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur 440034 ... Petitioners
-vs-
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Division Office,
Near Railway Station,
Nagpur 440001
Through Divisional Controller ... Respondent
Shri C. V. Jagdale, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri S. A. Sonak, Advocate for respondent.
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : January 29, 2025
Oral Judgment (Per : Nitin W. Sambre, J.)
1. Rule. Heard finally with consent of counsel for the parties.
2. The claim for payment of wages of the original petitioner
Gajanan from 30/07/2019 to 07/02/2020 is supported by the counsel
for the petitioner based on the administrative Circular No.7/2009
dated 05/03/2009 issued by the respondent-employer. It is claimed
that the petitioner Gajanan after having suffered paralytic attack while
discharging the duties of Conductor ought not to have been given
alternate work of a Cleaner pursuant to the embargo created by the
said administrative circular No.7/2009. It is claimed that had it been a
case that the employee Gajanan would have been provided some other
work other than which are reflected in the aforesaid circular, definitely
he would have discharged the said duties.
3. As against above, the counsel for the respondent-employer
suggests leave apart the embargo created by the circular dated
05/03/2009, the period for which the salary is being claimed by the
petitioner's legal heirs cannot be granted in view of the fact that the
deceased employee was not on duty for the said period. It is also
claimed that there was no leave balance to the credit of the deceased
employee and as such in view of the circular dated 4/8 March 2010,
the said employee is not entitled for the wages from 30/07/2019 to
07/02/2020. It is further claimed that whatever dues payable to the
deceased employee, were already paid and as such the petition is liable
to be dismissed.
4. The fact about the petitioner Gajanan being declared unfit to
discharge the duties of a Conductor is borne out of the record
particularly from the report of the Medical Board. The petitioner
Gajanan appears to have suffered paralytic attack on 24/09/2013 and
the Medical Board found him to be unfit for the post of Conductor. In
such an eventuality the respondent-employer could have given the light
work to Gajajan. However, from June 24, 2015 Gajanan was given
the work of Cleaner. In fact after the report of the Medical Board
referred above, in view of mandate provided under Circular
No.07/2009, the respondent-employer ought not to have given the
work of Cleaner to Gajanan. It appears that after such posting on the
post of Cleaner, the health of Gajajan deteriorated and he was certified
to be permanently incapacitated. The said fact can be inferred from
the report dated 07/02/2020 whereby it is certified that Gajajnan was
permanently incapacitated.
5. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual matrix, the embargo on
the respondent of not giving posting of Cleaner to the incapacitated
employee as reflected in Circular No.07/2009 dated 05/03/2009, in
our opinion the deceased employee was entitled for the wages for a
period from 30/07/2019 to 7/02/2020 as wages for rest of the period
are informed to be already paid. The employee Gajanan expired on
05/12/2021 and it is also informed that he was already paid the salary
for the earlier period.
6. As far as the contention of the counsel for the respondent that
there was no balance of leave to the credit of the deceased Gajanan
and as such in view of Circular dated 4/8 March 2010, the said
employee is not entitled to the wages from 30/07/2019 to 07/02/2020
is concerned, we are required to be sensitive to the embargo created
on the right of the respondent vide Circular dated 05/03/2009. The
respondent since has conducted himself against the mandate of the
Circular which infact led to deteriorating the health of Gajanan, the
said contention is liable to be rejected.
7. That being so, we direct the respondent-employer to release
dues of salary of the deceased employee Gajanan for a period from
30/07/2019 to 07/02/2020 as the wages 08/02/2020 onwards till his
death are informed to have been already paid. The aforesaid dues be
paid to the legal heirs of the deceased employee Gajanan who are the
petitioners herein within a period of three months from today.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
(Mrs Vrushali V. Joshi, J.) (Nitin W. Sambre, J.)
Asmita
Signed by: Smt. Asmita A. Bhandakkar
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/02/2025 11:08:29
