Bombay High Court
Rahul Suresh Thaware vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 20 March, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:8358-DB
(1)
WP 1099.2020 (J).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1099 OF 2020
Rahul Suresh Thaware
Age : 25 yrs, occ : Nil
R/o Fatema Nagar, Near Kaikadi
Galli, Sadar Bajar, Ambajogai,
District Beed Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
Social Justice and Special
Assistance Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Director,
Medical Education and Research,
Government Dental College and
Hospital Building, St. George's
Hospital Compound, Near C.S.T.
Mumbai.
3. The Dean,
Swami Ramanand Teerth Rural
Medical College and Hospital,
Ambajogai, District Beed Respondents
...
Mr. Ashok R. Tapse, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.R. Yadav-Lonikar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
...
CORAM : S.G. MEHARE &
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
DATED : 20 MARCH 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by the consent of the parties.
WP 1099.2020 (J).odt
2. The petitioner's claim appointment as Safai Kamgar
following the recommendations of Lad Page Committee, was
rejected in view of the Government Resolution dated
10.11.2015. The petitioner had challenged the decision of the
contesting respondent before the learned Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal (MAT). The learned MAT, by order
dated 22.04.2019 held that the Government Resolution dated
11.03.2016 is constitutional and the benefit was correctly
rejected. Against the said judgment and order, the petitioner
appeared before this Court.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
the Government has passed resolution dated 24.02.2023
whereby all the earlier government resolutions involving
entitlement or employment on the basis of Lad Page Committee
have been superseded. He would submit that pursuant
thereto this Court took a view in various matters and directed
the Authorities to conduct objective scrutiny of individual
claims in accordance with the Government Resolution dated
24.02.2023.
4. The learned A.G.P. would submit that whether
Government Resolution dated 24.02.2023 covers the claim of
the petitioner, is a matter of minute scrutiny. Therefore, no
blanket benefit could be granted as prayed for.
WP 1099.2020 (J).odt
5. Admittedly, the earlier Government Resolution
dated 11.03.2016 was in force to determine the criteria for the
benefit under Lad Page Committee. Recently the Government,
by taking overall view, passed the Government Resolution
dated 24.02.2023. The controversy regarding definition of
'Safai Kamgar' or eligibility for appointment by way of
nomination has been set at rest. The decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Ahmednagar Mahanagar
Paliks vs Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union;
(2022) 10 SSC 172 is not an impediment in implementing the
Government Resolution dated 24.02.2023. The facts before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that matter were different. Now
the eligibility for appointment by nomination and definition of
Safai Kamgar has been set at rest by the Government
Resolution dated 24.02.2023. Therefore, we expect the
appointing authorities of the establishment should follow the
Government Resolution dated 24.02.2023. Further, the claim
of the petitioner cannot be accepted outrightly. There would be
objective scrutiny of his claim by the appointing authority of
the establishment.
6. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (to which
Justice S.G. Mehare was the Member) in Writ Petition No.3204
of 2023, State of Maharashtra vs Goroba Ram Aaradwad and
WP 1099.2020 (J).odt
others and other writ petitions by order dated 08.01.2025, took
a view that appointing authority should follow the Government
Resolution dated 24.02.2023 with liberty to conduct objective
scrutiny. The issue involved in those petitioins and the case at
hand is identical. Hence, we follow the same course and pass
the following order.
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 16.03.2016 of
the Appointing Authority and the
judgment and order of the learned
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
dated 22.04.2019 in OA No. 640/2016
stand quashed and set aside.
(iii) The appointment and claim of the
petitioner to the post of Safai Kamgar
shall be regulated by Government
Resolution dated 24.02.2023. It shall be
implemented by the Employer,
Appointing Authority or the Competent
Authority of the Establishment.
(iv) The Employer, Appointing Authorities or
the Competent Authority of the
Establishment shall conduct objective
scrutiny of individual claim of the
petitioner expeditiously in accordance
with the Government Resolution dated
24.02.2023.
WP 1099.2020 (J).odt
(v) The petitioner shall be at liberty to
submit his application before the
Appointing Authority, Employer, or the
Competent Authority of the
Establishment, if not submitted earlier,
within a month from today.
(vi) After such application is received or
whether the application is already
pending, the Appointing Authority shall
extend an opportunity to the petitioner
to submit relevant document and decide
the claim of the petitioner within six
weeks thereafter. In case of rejection of
the claim, it shall be open to resort to
the remedy as permissible in law.
7. Rule made absolute accordinly. No order as to cost.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) (S.G. MEHARE)
JUDGE JUDGE
VD_Dhirde
