2024:BHC-AS:24851 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8801 OF 2003 Medical Superintendent, Rural Hospital and anr. } ….Petitioners : Versus :

Rajashree Lakshman Yadav } ….Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8566 OF 2003 Medical Superintendent, Rural Hospital and anr. } ….Petitioners : Versus :

Shobatai Malhari Khade } ….Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8524 OF 2003 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2768 OF 2011 Medical Superintendent, Rural Hospital and anr. } ….Petitioners : Versus :

Meghana Bhimrao Mane } ….Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8480 OF 2003 Medical Superintendent, Rural Hospital and anr. } ….Petitioners : Versus :

Anil Pandurang Dhebe } ….Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8421 OF 2003 The Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Satara and anr. } ….Petitioners : Versus :

Dhanashri Bharat Sankpal } ….Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8576 OF 2003 The Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Satara and anr. } ….Petitioners : Versus :

Rajaram Chagan Awale } ….Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8562 OF 2003 Medical Superintendent, Rural Hospital, Mahabaleshwar } ….Petitioners : Versus :

Laky Nandu Chavan } ….Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8558 OF 2003 The Medical Superintendent, Rural Hospital, Patan and anr. } ….Petitioners : Versus :

Balasaheb Vishnu Kharmate } ….Respondent __________________________________________________

Ms. Vaishali Nimbalkar, AGP for State-Petitioner.

Mr. Suresh Pakale, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nilesh Desai, for Respondents.

__________________________________________________

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Reserved on : 20 June 2024.

Pronounced on : 26 June 2024.

JUDGMENT :

A. THE CHALLENGE

1) The State Government has filed these eight petitions through the Medical Superintendents/Civil Surgeons of respective Hospitals and Deputy Director of Health Services, Pune challenging the common Judgment and Order dated 19 June 2022 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Satara in eight Complaints filed by Respondents alleging unfair labour practices in the matter of their temporary appointments in various hospitals. The Industrial Court has directed continuation of services of Respondents with further directions to grant of benefit of permanency to them.

B. FACTS

2) Briefly stated, facts involved in these eight petitions are that the State Government through its Health Department has set up various rural and other hospitals for providing healthcare related services. It appears that some para-medical, clerical and Class-IV posts were lying vacant in those hospitals due to variety of reasons such as not availability of regular employee, promotion of regular employee, deputation of regular employee for training, absence/leave of regular employee, etc. In the above background, it appears that Petitioner No.2-Deputy Director of Health Services, Pune entertained direct applications made by various candidates seeking their appointments during the years 2000-2001. It appears that Respondents accordingly submitted direct applications for appointment on various posts such as Junior Typist, Laboratory Technician and on various Class-IV posts such as Sweeper. It appears that the concerned hospitals were in need of staff. It appears that some of the posts in those Hospitals were being manned by temporary employees and the Medical Superintendent of the concerned Hospitals had made correspondence with Petitioner No.2 for deployment of fresh staff on vacant posts. This is how applications made by Respondents were entertained by Petitioner No.2 and they came to be granted temporary appointments on various posts such as Junior Clerk, Laboratory Technician, Pharmacist, sweeper, etc for a period of three months by various orders issued in the year 2000/2001. The appointment for three months was by giving break of one day at interval of 29 days.

3) It appears that though initially appointments were made only for a period of 3 months, the same were continued on 2/3 occasions by issuing fresh appointment orders for fu