The Chief Officer, Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad, Ratnagiri v. Smt Sarika Sharad Powar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2562 OF 2025 The Chief Officer, Ratnagiri, Nagar Parishad Ratnagiri.

... Petitioner V/s.

Prabhakar Janu Kambale ... Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2563 OF 2025 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2565 OF 2025 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2566 OF 2025 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2567 OF 2025 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2568 OF 2025 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2569 OF 2025 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2570 OF 2025 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2571 OF 2025 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2572 OF 2025 AND WRIT PETITION NO.2574 OF 2025 ______________ Mr. Rakesh Bhatkar with Ms. Smita Samel, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. Ashwin Pimpale with Mr. Mohit Dalvi, Advocates for the Respondent No.1 in all petitions.

Mr. J. P. Patil, AGP for the State in WP No.2562 of 2025. 1 of

Ms. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the State in WPs No.2563 of 2025 and 2572 of 2025.

Ms. A.A.Nadkarni, AGP for the State in WP No.2565 of 2025. Ms. Snehal S. Jadhav, AGP for the State in WP No.2566 of 2025. Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for the State in WPs No.2567 of 2025 and 2569 of 2025.

Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP for the State in WP No.2568 of 2025. Ms. S.R. Crasto, AGP for the State in WPs No.2570 of 2025, 2571 of 2025 and 2574 of 2025.

_______________ CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Dated : 26 February, 2025.

P.C. :

1.

These petitions are filed challenging the orders passed by Labour Court allowing the complaints of unfair labour practice filed by Respondents-employees and setting aside their termination orders. The orders passed by the Labour Court have been upheld by the Industrial Court and accordingly, the Petitioner-Municipal Council has filed the present petitions.

2.

I have heard Mr. Bhatkar, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner-Municipal Council and Mr. Pimpale, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent-employees.

2 of

3.

After having considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for parties, it is seen that that the Respondent-employees have been appointed in the service of the Municipal Council by virtue of Lad Page Committee recommendations on the following dates:- Names Date of Appointment (Tentative) 1.

Smt. Swapnali Dharmaji Kamble 31/12/2010 2.

Smt. Manisha Mahendra Kamble 13/07/2011 3.

Smt. Sarika Sharad Powar 17/09/2012 4.

Smt. Runali Rakesh Kamble 17/09/2012 5.

Smt. Devyani Siddharth Sawant 17/09/2012 6.

Shri Jogendra Suresh Jadhav 13/07/2011 7.

Shri Dinesh Prabhakar Jadhav 17/10/2011/ 01/04/2009 8.

Shri Sunil Dhondu Lakde 07/11/2009 9.

Shri Prabhakar Janu Kamble 13/07/2011 10.

Shri Baban Bapu Betkar 13/07/2011 11.

Shri Suraj Ravi Pawar 17/09/2012/ 29/01/2011 4.

It appears that Respondent-employees are wards/nominees of Safai Kamgars working in the Petitioner-Municipal Council. At the time of the retirement of the respective employees, their cases were considered for appointment on compassionate ground as per Lad Page Committee recommendations. Their services were sought to be terminated essentially on account of the Collector's report which found that the original Safai Kamgars, of which Respondents are nominees, were not eligible for being covered by scheme of compassionate appointment as per Lad Page Committee recommendations. It was sought to be contended that as per the 3 of

circular dated 23rd March 2006, following category of employees were not covered for appointment of their ward on compassionate basis as per Lad Page Committee recommendations:

कोणत्या सफाई कर्म चाऱ्यांना वारसा हक्क अनुज्ञेय नाहीत.

१) विवविहत पद्धतीचा अवलंब न करता विनयुक्त केलेले कर्म चारी.

२) रोजंदारी कार्मगारास न्यायालयीन विनण यार्मुळे कार्मावर घेणे.

३) सफाई कार्मगार पदोन्नती विर्मळून गट-क (वग ३) र्मध्ये गेल्यास.

४) सफाई कार्मगार या पदावर नेर्मणूक असलेले र्मात्र सफाई कार्म न करणारे ५) सेवेतून कर्मी करणे/ बडतफ करणे अथवा स्वेच्छेने राजीनार्मा देणारा सफाई कार्मगार ६) सन १९९३ पूव8च्या रोजंदारीवरील कर्म चाऱ्यांना विवशेष बाब म्हणून सार्मावून घेतलेले सफाई कर्म चारी.

5.

It is the contention of the Respondents that the original Safai Kamgars remained in the service of the Petitioner-Municipal Council either by virtue of Court's orders or they were absorbed in the municipal service as a special case. It is therefore contended that the cases of the Respondents were governed by the eventualities specified in Sr. Nos.2 and 6 of the clarification sought at Sr. No.11 of the Circular dated 23rd March, 2006. 6.

In my view it is too late in a day to now determine the eligibility of employees for being governed by the recommendations of the Lad Page Committee. The said employees have long since retired and their wards/nominees have been appointed on compassionate basis from the year 2009 onwards. It would therefore now be too oppressive for the PetitionerMunicipal Council to conduct an inquiry into the eligibility of their parents qua conditions prescribed under report of the Lad Page Committee. Even otherwise once the Safai Kamgars got regularized/ absorbed in municipal service, it hardly matters as to how they got regularized/absorbed. Lad 4 of

Page Committee recommendations apply to every permanent employee of the Municipal Council. Therefore, it is otherwise futile to conduct an inquiry about the manner in which the concerned employees become permanent in the service of the Municipal Council. By the time termination was proposed, the Respondent-employees have already put in 7/8 years of service. By now they are in service for last more than 15 long years. It is now be too late in a day to terminate their services by adopting a hyper technical approach that their parents were not governed by Lad Page Committee recommendations. 7.

In my view therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned orders passed by the Labour and the Industrial Courts. Having appointed the Respondent-employees after verifying their eligibility, the principles of estopple and legitimate expectation would apply while seeking to terminate their services after passage of such long period of time. Considering the unique facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined any valid ground to interfere in the orders passed by the Labour and the Industrial Courts.

8.

Writ Petitions are devoid of merits and are accordingly rejected without any order as to costs.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) 5 of