← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/2949/2003dismissed

Dnyandeo Waman Choudhari v. Plantation Officer And ORS

2022-03-17Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge3 pages

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 955 WRIT PETITION NO. 2949 OF 2003 Dnyandeo W/o. Waman Choudhari, ...PETITIONER Age-43 years, Occu-Service, R/o. Sangvi Bk., Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaond

VERSUS

1.

The Plantation Officer, ...RESPONDENTS Social Forestry Range, Yawal, Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon 2.

The Deputy Director, Social Forestry Division, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon Mr. V. Y. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. N. T. Bhagat, AGP for the respondent/State CORAM:RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATE:17-03-2022 ORAL JUDGMENT:

1.

The petitioner employee is before this court, being aggrieved by the conclusion of the Industrial Court in the judgment dated 13-03-2003 vide which his complaint (ULP) No. 1616 of 2019 has

(2) been partly allowed and he has been granted benefits of dailywages and not permanency.

2.

During the pendency of this petition, an order has been passed on 07-08-2015 on civil application No. 6913/2013. The communication dated 2/08/2013 addressed by the Deputy Director Social Forestry to the learned AGP, indicated that the proposal of the petitioner has been sent for approval to the competent authority for granting him the benefit of Converted Regular Temporary Establishment (CRTE). Said authorities were directed to take a decision within three months.

3.

In view of the above, this petition is disposed off with a direction to the respondents that, if the proposal of the petitioner is still not cleared, the same shall be cleared on or before 3006-2022, and the compliance report shall be placed

(3) before this court on or before 15-07-2022, through the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this court. 4.

It goes without saying that the petitioner is entitled to monetary benefits, incidental and consequential thereto. He already being on CRTE and after five years, on regular establishment, the impugned order of the Industrial Court directing that the petitioner should be continued as a daily wager, would not survive.

5.

Rule is discharged.

[ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ] VishalK/wp2949.03