Ratnamala Prakash More v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6286 OF 2015 RATNAMALA PRAKASH MORE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Patil Indrale Anand V. AGP for Respondents: Smt. S.D. Shelke .....

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND V. K. JADHAV, JJ.

DATED : 8th JULY, 2015 P.C. :- 1.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner in this writ petition is a Lecturer appointed on contractual basis and is similarly situated as the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2046 of 2010 decided by this Court at Nagpur Bench vide judgment and order dated 19th October, 2013, wherein this Court had directed the Respondents to regularize the services of such Petitioners and confirm them permanency, who have completed three years service with technical breaks. According to the learned counsel, the said judgment was also assailed before the Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition and the said Special Leave Petition has been dismissed by the Apex Court. Pursuant thereto, the Division Bench of this Court at principal Seat at Mumbai, has disposed of similar

-2petitions. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, even the Government by Government Resolution dated 14th January, 2015, has regularized the services of such 62 employees. 2.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing in the writ petition after considering the writ petition, accepts that the Petitioner in this writ petition is similarly situated as the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2046 of 2010, decided by the Nagpur Bench and the said judgment being confirmed by the Apex Court. 3.

In light of the above and for the reasons recorded in the judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 2046 of 2010 dated 19th October, 2013, by the Nagpur Bench, the present petition also stands disposed of.

4.

The Respondents shall regularize the services of the Petitioner and confirm permanency of the petitioner, who has completed three years of service with technical breaks. The Respondents shall also absorb the Petitioner within a period of six weeks, if on technical break. If the Petitioner is in continues employment till this date, she shall be continued in service as regularized employee. 5.

It is directed that the Petitioner shall be entitled for the regular

-3salary from 1st August, 2015, and would not be entitled to claim monetary benefits in respect of her past services rendered by her inspite of her regularization. The Petitioner shall be entitled for the continuity in service for all the purposes, except the past monetary benefits.

6.

Accordingly, all the writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. No cost.

( V. K. JADHAV, J.) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ) rlj/