Bombay High Court

Pramod S/O Harishchandra Wankhade vs Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, ... on 9 September, 2025

Author: M.S. Jawalkar

Bench: M.S. Jawalkar

2025:BHC-NAG:8851-DB


                       J-WP 4891.2022.odt                                   1/13


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


                                        WRIT PETITION NO. 4891 OF 2022

                              Pramod s/o Harishchandra Wankhade,
                              Aged about: 55 years, Occ. Service,
                              R/o. Mohan Nagar, VMV Road,
                              Amravati.                           ....PETITIONER

                               ...VERSUS...

                       1.     Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran,
                              Express Towers, Nariman Point,
                              Mumbai-1, through its Member
                              Secretary.

                       2.     Superintending Engineer, Maharashtra
                              Jeevan Pradhikaran Circle, 'Akshitam',
                              Maltekdi, Amravati.

                       3.     Superintending Engineer and Chairman
                              Circle Committee, Maharashtra Jeevan
                              Pradhikaran Circle, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

                       4.     Executive Engineer (Mechanical),
                              Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran Circle,
                              Maltekdi, Amravati.

                       5.     State of Maharashtra, through Secretary,
                              Department of Water Supply and
                              Sanitation, G.T. Hospital Complex,
                              Tilak Marg, Mumbai.
                                                                  ...RESPONDENTS
 J-WP 4891.2022.odt                                                          2/13




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smt. P.D.Meghe, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri D.M.Kakani, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Shri S.B. Bissa, AGP for Respondent No. 5/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND
               PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT  : 21/08/2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 09/09/2025

JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

Heard finally by consent of learned counsel

appearing for the respective parties.

2. By the present Petition, the Petitioner has

challenged the communication dated 03.01.2018 issued by

Respondent No. 3 - Superintending Engineer and Chairman,

Circle Committee, Nagpur Circle, Maharashtra Jeevan

Pradhikarn, Nagpur.

3. The facts of the case in brief are as under:-

The Petitioner holds several technical

qualifications including a Diploma in Electrical Engineering,

ITI (Electrician), a Certificate of Electrical Supervisor, and MS-

CIT. He was initially appointed as a Pump Operator at

Daryapur on 10/05/1986 by Respondent No. 2, considering

his ITI qualification. Over the course of his service, the

Petitioner enhanced his qualifications, completing his

Diploma in Electrical Engineering in 1993 and obtaining

exemption from the Departmental Examination for the post of

Electrical Supervisor in 1994.

4. Although designated as a Pump Operator, the

Petitioner was placed on the Converted Regular Temporary

Establishment (CRTE) in 1991 and, from 01/11/1994

onwards, began discharging duties of a Junior Engineer

(Electrical/Mechanical). This fact was acknowledged by the

Sub-Divisional Officer, who had issued a certificate dated

25/02/1997. Further, the Government, by its letter dated

04/02/1993, had clarified that, the post of Electrical

Supervisor was re-designated as that of Junior Engineer,

thereby making the Petitioner eligible for absorption on the

said post.

5. It is contended that, though the Petitioner was

promoted from Pump Operator to Electrician in 2008 and

later as Electrical Supervisor in 2012, he was consistently

denied absorption as Junior Engineer. Despite Respondent

No. 3's recommendation dated 24/10/2017, Respondent

No. 2 rejected the proposal on the ground that, he was on

CRTE, the reason is untenable since the Petitioner had

attained permanency on 10/05/1996.

6. It is further submitted that, several similarly

placed Electrical Supervisors, including Shri M. E. Bhole,

were promoted as Junior Engineer, but the Petitioner alone

was denied. The discrimination became evident when

Respondent No. 1, by order dated 06/07/2021, promoted

Civil Engineering Assistants to Junior Engineers while

excluding the Petitioner, despite his higher qualifications and

experience.

7. Thus, though eligible and with posts available, the

Petitioner was arbitrarily denied absorption as Junior

Engineer. The Respondents' conduct is discriminatory and

reflects a pick and choose policy, calling an intervention by

this Court.

8. On the contrary, it is the contention of the

Respondents that, the present Petition is barred by gross

delay and laches, having been filed more than four years after

the Communication dated 15/12/2017. The Petitioner was

initially appointed on a purely temporary basis without

following the prescribed recruitment procedure and was

subsequently absorbed only on Converted Regular

Temporary Establishment (CRTE) under the Kalelkar Award,

which does not constitute regular service. The qualifications

acquired during service cannot entitle him to promotion, nor

can CRTE service be treated as equivalent to service in the

regular establishment.

9. It is further contended that the certificates,

circulars and notifications relied upon by the Petitioner are

applicable only to employees appointed on regular

establishment posts and have no bearing on his case. The

Recruitment Rules and Government Notifications dated

29/05/2010 and 20/04/2013 expressly exclude CRTE

employees from promotion to the post of Junior Engineer.

Hence, the Petition is devoid of merit, suffers from

suppression of material facts, and is liable to be dismissed.

10. The learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to

4 relied on the following citations:-

(i) State of Tamil Nadu and ors. V/s. Amala Annai Higher Secondary School {2009(9) SCC 386}

(ii) State of U.P. and anr. V/s. U.P. Rajya Vidhit Adhikari Karyalaya Karmachari Sangh {Judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4768/1992, Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12016/1992, dated 4/11/1992}

11. The Petitioner claiming relief of quashing and

setting aside the Communication dated 03/01/2018, issued

by Respondent No.3 - Superintending Engineer and

Chairman, Circle Committee, Nagpur Circle, Maharashtra

Jeevan Pradhikaran, Nagpur. Further it is claimed that

Respondent No.1-Member Secretary, Maharashtra Jeevan

Pradhikaran, Mumbai be directed to absorb the Petitioner as a

Junior Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical) from the date the

Petitioner was appointed as Electrical Supervisor.

12. It is contended that the Petitioner was initially

appointed as Pump Operator at Daryapur on 10/05/1986. In

the year 1990, a Notification was issued by the Department of

Rural Development declaring that designation of post of

Electrical Supervisor has been changed to Junior Engineer

(Electrical/Mechanical). It is further contended that the

Petitioner holding a qualification of Diploma in Electrical

Engineering, ITI (Electrician), a Certificate of Electrical

Supervisor and MS-CIT. In spite of this qualification and

despite of the fact that there is availability of post, the

Respondent deprived him from the said post as Junior

Engineer, despite of making consistent recommendation by

the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to absorb the Petitioner on the

post of Junior Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical). In 2018, the

Respondent No.3 informed to Respondent No.2 that since the

Petitioner is working as Electrical Supervisor on

Casual/Regular Temporary Establishment (CRTE), as such,

he cannot be absorbed as a Junior Engineer. There is another

recommendation of Sub-Divisional Engineer (Mechanical),

Amravati in the year 2021 to Executive Engineer, Amravati -

Respondent No.4 that the Petitioner should be promoted or

absorbed as Junior Engineer. The Petitioner also made a

representation to Respondent No.1 to grant absorption as

Junior Engineer. The said recommendation and

representation turned out on the ground that the Petitioner is

working on CRTE therefore, he cannot be absorbed as a

Junior Engineer.

13. As against this, the Respondents contention is that

the provision of "Kalelkar Award" is applicable to the

employees, those who are entered into services either on daily

wage basis or on temporary basis. The persons governed by

the Kalelkar Award have not appointed on any sanctioned

post and for them a supernumerary post has been created.

After completion of five years of service on temporary basis,

the Petitioner has been taken on the post of Electrician and

Electrical Supervisor on CRTE basis, as provided in the

Kalelkar Award. Till the year 1991, the Petitioner was daily

wager and he was taken on CRTE from the year 1991 and has

been paid salary in pay scale since he has been taken on

CRTE.

14. The Respondents further contended that the

Petitioner obtained Diploma in Electrical Engineering by

corresponding course on 13/05/1993, however, this fact is

not mentioned in the Petition. As the Petitioner was

appointed on CRTE basis, therefore, whatever be the

qualification acquired by the Petitioner, he cannot claim the

post of regular establishment by way of promotion. The

Respondents denied that any exemption was granted to the

Petitioner from passing the departmental examination. So far

as the Notification dated 10/07/1990 is concerned, issued by

the Rural Development Department in respect of the

Electrical Supervisor post of Groundwater Survey and

Development Agency, which comes under the regular

establishment. However, the said notification is not

applicable to the Petitioner as he has been appointed on

CRTE basis. The claim of the Petitioner is that in view of the

Circular dated 16/12/1998, he may be promoted as Civil

Engineer Assistant by way of promotion, though he was

appointed on CRTE basis. It is also made clear that there is no

any recommendation on behalf of the Respondent to take the

Petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer as alleged by the

Petitioner.

15. The learned Counsel Mr. D.M. Kakani for

Respondent Nos.1 to 4, drew our attention to the Letter dated

04/09/2020 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Navi

Mumbai, it was in respect of filling up the post of Technician

and Electrical Engineer and not for filling up the post of

Junior Engineer therefore, it is not concerned with the present

Petitioner. It was pointed out that as per staffing pattern of

the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikarn, the post of Junior

Engineer (Electrical) does not exists on the establishment. It

appears that the recommendation made by the Deputy

Engineer to the Executive Engineer by which impression has

been created that the said post of Junior Engineer (Electrical)

exists from the establishment of Maharashtra Jeevan

Pradhikarn and because of the said recommendation, the

conclusion has been created. The post of Junior Engineer

(Electrical) does not exists on the establishment of

Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikarn as per staffing pattern of

Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikarn dated 16/04/2008, approved

by the Government of Maharashtra.

16. On perusal of the staffing pattern, it clearly

reveals that the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) is not there

on the establishment of Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikarn,

however, the only post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) and

Junior Engineer (Civil) are approved. The qualification, which

the Petitioner is holding, is not as per required qualification

for the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical). The Petitioner

was not possessing the Diploma in Mechanical Engineering

or Automobile Engineering, in view thereof also, his claim for

Junior Engineer is not sustainable. The order, by which the

Petitioner was taken on CRTE, it was made clear that as per

terms of Kalelkar Award, the employee holding the post of

promotion as per CRTE, the said post would get

automatically lapsed on promotion.

17. The learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4

relied on State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Amala Annai Higher

Secondary School (supra) in support of his contention that the

High Court cannot direct creation and sanction of posts. It is

the prerogative of the executive and the Courts cannot

arrogate to themselves a purely executive power. The Hon'ble

Apex Court in para 15 observed as under :

"15. Last but not the least, the High Court erred in directing the present Appellant 1 to sanction one post of Junior Assistant to Respondent 1, AAHS School from 1-6-1994 overlooking and ignoring that creation and sanction of posts is the prerogative of the executive and the courts cannot arrogate to themselves a purely executive power".

Similar view is taken in the case of State of U.P.

and another Vs. U. P. RajyaVidhit Adhikari karyalaya

Karamchari Sangh (supra).

18. On perusal of staff justification, it is clear that

there is no post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) sanctioned on

the establishment of Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikarn, the only

post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) and Junior Engineer

(Civil) are approved. As there was no post sanctioned of

Junior Engineer (Electrical), our attention is drawn to the

Seniority List of 1921, which shows that last person i.e. Sau.

Sunanda Chauhan came to be appointed as Electrical

Engineer on 30/03/1998, thereafter, the post of Junior