JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Petition is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.

2. This petition is filed by the State Government challenging the judgment and order dated December 14, 2018 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) allowing Original Application No. 632/2016. The Original Application was instituted by 29 Original Applicants working on various posts in Government Tribal Industrial Training Institutions seeking counting of their contractual services from the dates of their initial appointments for all purposes, except for monetary benefits. The Tribunal has allowed the Original Application and directed that the services rendered by them before the dates of their regularisation w.e.f. April 1, 2014 be counted for continuity in service and other consequential service benefits, except monetary benefits.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the Government of Maharashtra introduced a Scheme for imparting vocational training to tribal youths and issued Government Resolution (GR) dated August 23, 2004. The Scheme envisaged, inter-alia, setting up of new training schools as well as conversion of Ashram Schools into Vocational Training Institutes with the object of imparting vocational training to tribal students for creation of employment and self-employment opportunities for them. By that GR, 414 posts of teaching and non-teaching staff in such Training Institutes. The Scheme was to initially operated for 3 years.

4. In pursuance of the aforesaid Scheme, the State Government undertook an exercise of appointing teaching staff on contract basis in various Government Tribal Industrial Training Institutes. Accordingly, 29 respondents herein came to be engaged on contract basis from various dates on various teaching and non-teaching posts so created by the GR dated August 23, 2004. The appointments were made on contract basis for a period of 11 months. After grant of technical breaks, the tenure of their appointments was extended from time to time. The operation of the Scheme was extended from time to time.

5. The State Government took a decision in the year 2014 to accord permanency to the Scheme introduced in the year 2004 and accordingly G.R. dated July 8, 2014 was issued inter-alia directing that the 414 posts which were earlier being filled on contract basis be filled by granting 6th Pay Commission Scales. It was further directed that the existing incumbents holding the posts on contract basis be regularised and the remaining vacancies be filled by direct recruitment. In pursuance of the G.R. dated July 8, 2014, the State Government regularised the services of Respondents w.e.f. April 1, 2014. Regularisation was however effected prospectively with a specific condition that the earlier services upto March 31, 2014 shall not be counted for any purposes.

6. Respondents instituted Original Application No. 632/2016 praying for counting of the contractual services rendered by them prior to April 1, 2014 for all purposes except monetary benefits. The Tribunal has proceeded to allow the Original Application by judgment and order dated December 14, 2018, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

7. Appearing for Petitioner-State Government Mr. Rajpurohit, the learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the Tribunal has erroneously directed counting of past services though the benefit of regularisation was granted to the Respondents on a specific condition that the past services would not be counted for any purposes. He would further submit that the Tribunal has erroneously relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Sachin Ambadas Dawale and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Another in Writ Petition No. 2046/2010 decided on October 19, 2013. He would submit that there is a marked difference between the factual position in Sachin Ambadas Dawale (supra) and the present case. That in Sachin Am