[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Manohar Nathuji Meshram vs The Jt. Director, Health Services, ... on 12 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:476
12.WP.3028.2011 Judgment.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.3028 OF 2011
PETITIONER :- Manohar Nathuji Meshram
Aged about 50 years, Occupation : Service,
R/o Wadali, Post Dahigaon Recha, Tahsil
Anjangaon Surji, District Amravati.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENTS :- 1) The Joint Director, Health Services,
(Malaria & Falaria) Alandi Road, Near
Mental Hospital Pune-1.
2) The Deputy Director of Health Services,
Akola.
3) The Assistant Director of Health Services
(Malaria), Akola.
4) The District Malaria Officer, behind
Dafrin Hospital, Amravati.
5) The State of Maharashtra, Public Health
Department, Through it's Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr P.D. Meghe, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr H.D. Dubey, A.G.P. for Respondents/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 12/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
12.WP.3028.2011 Judgment.odt
1. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the
respective parties.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a 'Field Worker' with
respondent No.4 somewhere around 10.07.1978. He worked on the
said post until attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2018.
The petitioner filed a complaint being Complaint (ULP) No.498 of
1996, before the learned Industrial Court, Amravati, inter alia
seeking a direction for regularization of his services in terms of
Circular dated 16.03.1991, issued by the Joint Director of Health
Services (Malaria and Filaria), Pune-1. The learned Industrial Court
has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the petitioner did
not possess the requisite qualification for appointment to the said
post of Spray Worker/Field Worker, and therefore, relief of
regularization cannot be granted for want of requisite qualification.
Mr. P.D. Meghe, learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that
as on the date of appointment of the petitioner, the requisite
qualification for appointment to the post of field worker was that
the candidate must have cleared Standard-IV examination, which
the petitioner has cleared. The learned Advocate contends that the
petitioner has received a call for participation in the selection
process through the Employment Exchange. In the alternate, the
12.WP.3028.2011 Judgment.odt
learned Advocate contends that having regard to the nature of work
and the post which is a Class-IV post, the need of requisite
qualification must be relaxed having regard to the fact that the
petitioner had completed around 18 years of service on the date of
filing of the complaint. Mr. Meghe, learned Advocate draws
attention to the Circular dated 16.03.1991 which provides for
regularization of services of seasonal spray workers upon
completion of five years service. He contends that similar complaint
filed by juniors of the petitioner have been allowed by the learned
Industrial Court, being Complaint (ULP) No.69 of 2014 and in
accordance with the said judgment, benefit of regularization in
services granted by the respondent to the said complainants.
Referring to the said judgment, Mr. Meghe, points out that the
complainants in the said case were appointed in the year 1998 and
accordingly, almost 20 years junior to the petitioner in the present
case.
3. Mr. Meghe, also draws attention to the judgment dated
07.01.2013 passed by the learned Industrial Court in Complaint
(ULP) No.1087 of 1996, wherein the benefit of regularization in
service with all monetary benefits was granted by the Industrial
Court in a similar case. He also draws attention to the judgment
12.WP.3028.2011 Judgment.odt
dated 13.07.2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4444 of
2013 and Writ Petition No.4448 of 2013, whereby the said
judgment is upheld by this Court. Mr. Meghe, therefore contends
that in the present case also, the relief of regularization in service
from the date of filing of the complaint should be granted to the
petitioner.
4. Per contra, Mr. Dubey, learned A.G.P., supports the
impugned judgment and contends that in the cases referred to by
Mr. Meghe, the candidates were holding the requisite qualifications.
He contends that the petitioner was not holding the requisite
qualification of clearing S.S.C. examination and that his
appointment was also not made by following the prescribed
procedure.
5. As regards the second contention with respect to
appointments being made by following the prescribed procedure, in
the cases of other ad-hoc spray workers as well, the appointments
were not made in accordance with the prescribed procedure for
appointment or regularization.
6. In the present case, in compliance of order dated
01.04.2025 passed by this Court, the petitioner has produced an
interview call letter dated 13.02.1986, issued by the Deputy
12.WP.3028.2011 Judgment.odt
Director of Health Services to the petitioner. Although the said
interview call letter is dated 13.02.1986 and the initial appointment
of the petitioner is of the year 1978, the said interview call letter will
demonstrate that the petitioner is not a backdoor entrant and
therefore his candidature was considered for continuation on ad-hoc
basis. Even if his service is counted from the year 1986, the
petitioner has completed more than five years service, as required
under the Circular dated 16.03.1991.
7. Perusal of the judgments referred by the learned
Advocate for the petitioner will demonstrate that in cases were
seasonable spray workers had putting more than five years of
service, their services were regularized from the date of filing of the
complaint. The petitioner cannot be deprived of the said relief by
applying principle of parity.
8. As regards the contention of learned A.G.P. that the
petitioner is not holding the requisite qualification and is not
entitled to regularization, the contention is liable to be rejected.
Having regard to the fact that the post involved in the case is a
Class-IV post of Spray Worker/Field Worker. The petitioner has
rendered service on the said post around 40 years, and there is no
material on record that he could not discharge his duties properly
12.WP.3028.2011 Judgment.odt
for want of requisite qualification i.e. S.S.C. Reliance in this regard
can be placed on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and Ors. ..vs.. Abahi Kumar and
Ors.1 and in the case of Jaggo ..vs.. Union of India and Ors.2
9. In view of the aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this
Court, writ petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed in the
following terms :-
i) Judgment and order dated 30.04.2009, passed by the
learned Member, Industrial Court, Amravati, in
Complaint (ULP) No.498 of 1996, is quashed and set
aside.
ii) Complaint (ULP) No.498 of 1996 decided by the
learned Member, Industrial Court, Amravati, is partly
allowed by declaring that the respondents have engaged
in unfair labour practice under items 5, 6 and 9 of
Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 and
further directing them to desist such unfair labour
practices.
iii) Respondents are directed to grant benefit of
regularization or absorption in service to the petitioner
1 (2001) 3 SCC 328
2 2024 SC (OnLine) (SC) 12494
12.WP.3028.2011 Judgment.odt
on the post of Spray Worker/Field Worker in the regular
time scale establishment from the date of his
appointment, with all monetary benefits from the date of
filing of the complaint.
iv) Respondents shall comply the order on or before
30.04.2026.
v) No order as to costs.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)
C.L. Dhakate
