Aruna Janardhan Moholkar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2150 OF 2019 Aruna d/o Janardhan Moholkar, Age: 37 years, Occu: Service, R/o. Naigaon, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed ..PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2.

The Deputy Director, Health Services, Latur, Division Latur 3.

The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad 4.

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed 5.

The District Health Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed ..RESPONDENT Mr M. D. Narwadkar, Advocate for petitioner;

Mr V. S. Badakh, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3; Ms S. P. Chate, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5 CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND S. M. GAVHANE, JJ.

DATE : 27th February, 2019 ORAL ORDER:

Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

(2) 2.

Considering the nature of the grievance raised in the petition, we are of the opinion that the petition can be disposed of at the admission stage. 3.

Issue notice to respondents, returnable forthwith. 4.

Learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader waives service of notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Ms Chate, learned Counsel waives for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

5.

It may not be necessary to refer to the facts in detail, suffice it to say that the petitioner was appointed as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife in the health Services of Zilla Parishad. A copy of an appointment order is placed on record at page No.60 of the petition. Perusal of the appointment order shows that the petitioner was appointed as a contractual employee and required to submit a bond. The other documents placed on record show that the petitioner worked for a considerable period on honorarium and they prima facie show that the services of the petitioner are unblemished. The petitioner submitted representations to the District Health Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed with a request to grant benefit of regularization and permanency. A copy of representation dated 12th August, 2017 is placed on record. It seems that on receiving the proposal of petitioner along with another employee, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed

(3) forwarded the same to the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad sometime in the month of February, 2018. The Chief Executive Officer recorded his positive recommendation and submitted the proposal for decision to the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad.

6.

A limited grievance of the petitioner is, the aforesaid proposal is pending before the Divisional Commissioner for a considerable long period. Learned Counsel is justified in submitting that it is the legitimate anxiety of the petitioner to have early decision on the proposal. 7.

Considering the aforesaid facts, the petition is disposed of with directions to respondent No.3 - Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad to decide the proposal submitted by the petitioner in the month of February 2018, as expeditiously as possible and not later than twelve weeks from the date of the order of this Court, needless to state on its own merits. With these directions/observations, the petition is disposed of accordingly.

(S. M. GAVHANE, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.) sjk