Gajanan Datta Gayakwad v. The State Of Maharashtra,Thr. Its Secretary For Sports And Youth Welfare Dept. Mumbia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Ramesh Savairao Jadhav Aged about 42 years, R/o Pandharpurkar Niwas, Behind Shripad Hotel, Mangilal Plot, Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
....... RE SPONDENT S Satyashil Bhagwanrao Patil Aged about 38 years, R/o 28-B, Vishvakarma Nagar, Nagpur, Tq. & Dist. Nagpur.
....... RESPONDENTS Gajanan Datta Gayakwad Aged about 38 years, C/o Sanjay Iswarkar Sainath Society, Kale Layout, Yavatmal, Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal.
....... RESPONDENTS Rajesh Ramkrushna Gawande Aged about 38 years, R/o C/o Vishal Ekade, Infront of Lila School,
Civil Lines, Washim, Tq. & Dist. Washim.
....... RESPONDENTS Nitesh Nilkantha Zade Aged about 38 years, R/o Nagar Parishad Layout, Behind Meher Baba Centre, Deoli, Tq. Deoli, Dist. Wardha.
....... RESPONDENTS Kavita Sakruji Pawar, Aged about 39 years, R/o Prajapati Nagar, Wadgaon Road, Yavatmal.
....... RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S. M. Vaishnav, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Yatin Malvankar, Advocate for Respondent 3. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COR A M :
ROHIT B. DEO AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI , J J .
DATE:
th FEBRUARY, .
COMMON
JUDGMENT
: (PER ROHIT B. DEO, J.) The issue involved is common and the petitions are heard and decided by a common order.
Petitioners are working on the establishment of respondent 3 - Maharashtra State Bharat Scouts and Guides as District Organizers and District Organizing Commissioner (petitioner in Writ Petition 5468/2021).
It is not in dispute that the appointment order incorporates a condition that within three years from the date of appointment the Himalaya Wood Badge (HWB) course shall be successfully completed, and further within five years from the completion of HWB, the Assistant Leader Training (ALT) course shall be completed.
4.
We may extract the dates of appointments and the dates on which the aforesaid two courses have been completed, if completed at all:
SR.
NO.
NAME AND WP NO.
DATE OF APPOINTMENT (D.O.A.) BASIC ADVANCE ASSIGNMEN T HWB (3 YEARS FROM D.O.A.) ALT (5 YEARS FROM HWB) KAVITA PAWAR WP 5465 OF 2021 01.10.2012 22.10.2012 14.12.2013 19.06.2017 23.05.2018 NOT COMPLETED NITESH ZADE WP 5467 OF 2021 01.10.2012 22.10.2012 07.12.2013 04.08.2018 20.01.2020 NOT COMPLETED RAJESH GAWANDE WP 5468 OF 2021 01.10.2012 26.12.2003 30.05.2005 31.03.2006 03.11.2007 NOT COMPLETED 4.
GAJANAN GAYAKWAD WP 5469 OF 2021 30.09.2013 07.12.2013 24.05.2015 14.10.2016 20.04.2018 17.08.2022 5.
RAMESH JADHAV WP 5387 OF 2021 04.04.2008 04.05.2008 23.11.2009 21.03.2013 10.10.2013 06.06.2018 6.
SATYASHIL PATIL WP 2074 OF 2022 01.02.2013 25.05.2013 20.12.2014 13.06.2016 02.04.2018 NOT COMPLETED
5.
The petitioners are assailing separate orders dated 06.12.2021 whereby the petitioners are informed that the increments due for the period from the outer limit for completion of the courses till the date of actual completion of the courses shall be withheld, and further that the date of regularization shall stand postponed to the date on which the HWB course is completed. 6.
The orders impugned further convey to the petitioners that separate orders shall be issued as regards the recovery of the amount against the increment released.
7.
In so far as the recovery aspect is concerned, we need not delve deeper in view of the fair submission of the learned counsel for respondent 3 that the aspect of recovery shall be independently considered and an appropriate order issued after hearing the petitioners.
8.
In so far as the postponement of the date of confirmation, we do not find any provision in the order of appointment which entitles the employer to postpone the date of confirmation. No other material is brought to our notice indicative of the existence of such right.
9.
We have no option but to quash the order impugned to the extent the date of confirmation stands postponed, and we order accordingly.
10.
Before parting with the order, we may observe that the submission of the learned counsel for respondent 3 that the employees are displaying a cavalier attitude to the service conditions particularly those specifically prescribed in the appointment orders, cannot be brushed under the carpet. The employees shall be well advised to scrupulously abide by the service conditions, particularly those pertaining to completion of the courses prescribed, and which courses can only upgrade the skill sets of the employees.
11.
The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. (MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (ROHIT B. DEO, J.) NSN SHIVNARAYAN NIKHARE