Bombay High CourtCAW/1295/2015dispossed offdismiss for default

State Of Maharashtra, Through The Secretary And 3 Others v. Chandraprakash Jagobaji Shende

2015-09-16Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 caw1295.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAW) NO.1295 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6145 OF 2010.

(STATE OF MAH & OTH..VS..CHANDRAPRAKASH JAGOBAJI SHENDE) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : SEPTEMBER 16, 2015.

Heard Shri R.P. Masurkar advocate holding for Shri S.S. Ghate, advocate for the respondent-employee and Shri A.M.Deshpande, learned A.G.P. for the petitioners. The application is filed by the respondentemployee seeking directions to the petitioners to grant regularization from 1st May, 1992 along with all the consequential benefits.

The learned advocate for the respondentemployee submits that the respondent-employee is entitled for regularization from 1st May, 1992 along with the consequential benefits as per the impugned order, however, the petitioners have granted regularization w.e.f. 22nd July, 2010 which is not in consonance with the directions given by the Industrial Court. It is further submitted that the condition No.1 incorporated in the appointment order that the services of the respondent-employee being temporary, can be terminated at any time without notice, is also contrary to the directions given by the Industrial Court.

2 caw1295.15 The learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the services of the respondent-employee are regularized w.e.f. 22nd July, 2010 i.e. date of the order passed by the Industrial Court and it is in accordance with the directions given by the Industrial Court. It is further submitted that the condition No.1 incorporated in the appointment order is also as per the policy of the petitioners. Considering the facts of the case, the prayer of the respondent-employee for directing the petitioners to regularize the services from 1st May, 1992 and to make available the consequential benefits from 1st May, 1992 cannot be considered at this stage. However, it is clarified that the condition No.1 incorporated in the appointment order will not be invoked and if any contingency arises, the petitioners shall seek permission of this Court before taking any adverse action against the respondent-employee. The Civil Application is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

JUDGE RRaut..