Rama Mokinda Thorat And Others v. The State Of Mahrashtra And Others

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ______________________________________________________ WRIT PETITION NO. 1702 OF 2016 RAMA MOKINDA THORAT AND OTHERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr.P.K. Wagh AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.D.

Kaldate Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. U.S.

Mote ...

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

Dated: JUNE 27, 2016 ...

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings in the Petition and the documents placed on record.

2.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the case of the employees on the establishments of Zilla Parishads, Osmanabad and Latur, though `Maruf Agreement' was earlier made

applicable, governing their service conditions, subsequently, application of said agreement was cancelled and `Kalelkar Settlement' is made applicable governing their service conditions.

3.

The statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is also confirmed by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3­ Zilla Parishad. He submits that already proposal is forwarded by respondent no.3 to respondent no.1, requesting for applying `Kalelkar Settlement' instead of `Maruf Agreement' to the employees of respondent no.3.

4.

There is innocuous prayer in the petition, inasmuch as direction is sought to respondent no.1 to decide the proposal dated 01.06.2015 submitted by respondent no.3 in respect of applicability of the provisions of `Kalelkar Agreement' to the petitioners who are working under "Maruf Agreement".

5.

In that view of the matter, we direct respondent no.1 - State to take a decision on the said proposal dated 01.06.2015 on its own merits forwarded by

respondent no.3, if necessary, after hearing the parties, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of twelve (12) weeks from today and communicate the said decision to the petitioners and respondent no.3. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits and it is left to respondent no.1 to take appropriate decision.

6.

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

(SANGITRAO S.PATIL, J) (S.S. SHINDE, J) sga/