IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
D. H. WAGHELA AND M. S. SONAK, J.
The State of Maharashtra - Petitioner
versus
Smt. Meena A. Kuwalekar - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 8553 OF 2012 AND 9051, 8166, 9048, 8295, 9042, 9040, 8149, 9039, 8674, 9049, 8272, 9038, 7779, 8119, 7549, 8120, 9043, 9047, 8150, 9041, 7328, 9044, 10929 OF 2013, AND 1248, 4645, 9974, 9975, 9976, 9977, 9978 OF 2014 And 1506 OF 2015 AND 745 OF 2016
Decided On : 28-04-2016
(B) Service Law—Promotion—Time Bound Promotion Scheme (TBPS) and/or Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS)—Pay and allowances of such employees who are engaged on a work charged establishment are usually shown under a specified special head of estimated cost of works---Work charged employees are engaged for a specified work or a project and their engagement comes to an end on completion of work or project---Source and mode of engagement/recruitment of work charged employees, their pay and conditions of employment are altogether different from persons appointed in regular establishment against sanctioned posts after following procedure prescribed under relevant Acts or the Rules and their duties and responsibilities are also substantially different than those of regular employees—This is not a case where respondent - employees were either appointed on purely ad hoc basis de hors recruitment rules or in some whimsical, inconsistent or haphazard manner---This is also not a case where respondent - employees were appointed on work charged basis or as daily wagers. Rather, this is a case where respondent - employees, though appointed on temporary basis, were so appointed against permanent, clear, substantive and sanctioned vacancies—Services of such respondent - employees, right from date of their initial appointment has been taken into consideration by State Government practically for all purposes except perhaps seniority.
Result—Petitions dismissed.
M. S. Sonak, J.
1. Rule in each of these petitions. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. Learned counsel for the parties state and agree that the common issues of law and fact arise in this batch of petitions and therefore, it will be appropriate if the same are disposed of by common judgment and order. Learned counsel for the parties further state and agree that the facts as set out in writ petition no. 9051 of 2013 may be adverted to, as the same are representative of the facts in this batch of petitions. Accordingly, this batch of petitions is being disposed of by common judgment and order by reference to the facts as set out in writ petition no. 9051 of 2013 for sake of convenience.
3. The challenge in each of these petitions is to the orders (impugned orders) made by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT). The impugned orders have directed the State Government to consider the cases of the respondents-employees (Group 'C' employees) for grant of benefits under Time Bound Promotion Scheme (TBPS) and/or Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) by taking into consideration their services from the date of their initial appointments.
4. The main issue involved in this batch of petitions is therefore, whether the period of 12 years or 24 years service, prescribed as prerequisite for availing benefits under TBPS and/or ACPS is to be reckoned from the date of the initial appointment of the respondents employees or from 1 December 1994, which is the date from which their services were treated as regularised in terms of Government Resolution (GR) dated 1 December 1994?
The petitioner – State Government contends that the latter date i.e. 1 December 1994 is relevant, whereas, the respondent - employees contend that it is the former date i.e. the date of their initial appointments, which is relevant. The MAT, relying inter alia upon its
previous decisions, as also the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in The Director of Technical Education vs. Kum. Nanda C. Chavan & Ors., Writ Petition No. 9962 of 2010 and other connected matters decided on 6.2.2012 and connected matters has ruled in favour of the respondent – employees. Hence, the present petitions by and on behalf of the petitioner – State Government.
5. Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned Senior Advocate, who appears for the petitioner – State, has emphasized the expression 'regular service' used in the GRs dated 8 June 1995 and 20 July 2001 to submit that the respondents – employees can claim benefits under the TBPS or ACPS only w.e.f. 1 December 2006 i.e., upon the date of completion of 12 years of service after regularization w.e.f. 1 December 1994, in terms of the GR dated 1 December 1994. Mr. Kumbhakoni, by relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Mohnot, (2014) 14 SCC 77 State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, (2009) 12 SCC 49 State of Haryana vs. Haryana Veterinary & Ahts Association & Anr., (2000) 8 SCC 4 Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. Jagjiwan Ram & Ors., (2009) 3 SCC 661 has submitted that the expression 'regular service' means and implies the services rendered by an employee after he is appointed or admitted to a cadre or after he is appointed or admitted to the membership of the service and therefore, any service rendered by such employee before such date, can never be regarded as “regular service”, even though, it may be regarded as “continuous service”. Mr. Kumbhakoni assailed the impugned orders made by the MAT for what he described as “confusion between the concepts of regular service and continuous service” and on this basis, submitted that the impugned orders warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. Mr. Kumbhakoni, relying upon the decision of this Court in Arjun Vasant Rane & Ors. vs. Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Higher and Technical Education Department &
State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi
Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (3)
Union of India and Anr. Vs. G. Rajanna and Ors.
State of U.P. & Ors Vs. Maqbool Ahmad (2006) 7 SCC 521
A.P. SEB v. R. Parthasarathi [(1998) 9 SCC 425 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1195]
Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri v. V.M. Joseph [(1998)5 SCC 305 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1362]
Renu Mullick v. Union of India [ (1994) 1 SCC 373 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 570: (1994) 26 ATC 602].
A.P. SEB v. R. Parthasarathi [(1998) 9 SCC 425: 1998 SCC (L&S) 1195]
Raksha Mantri v. V.M. Joseph [(1998) 5 SCC 305 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1362]
Renu Mullick v. Union of India [(1994) 1 SCC 373 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 570: (1994) 26 ATC 602]
M. Venugopal V. Divisional Manager
Union of India & Ors. vs. M. Mathivanan
Dwijen Chandra Sarkar & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Union of India & Anr. vs. V. N. Bhat
Gursharan Singh & Ors. vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors.
Directorate of Film Festivals & Ors. vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors.
State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Mohnot
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.