Bombay High Court
Vaishali Shahaji Kokate vs Municipal Commissioner Pimpri … on 8 August, 2024
2024:BHC-AS:33847
Megha group matter_fc.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5692 OF 2023
Pramila Kiran Mane ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5700 OF 2023
Vrushali Prashant Amrutkar ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9966 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation through the
Commissioner and Anr. ....Petitioner
V/s.
Hemlata Sumansingh Valvi ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5718 OF 2023
Rushikesh Deepakrao More ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5709 OF 2023
Mangesh Mahadev Shete ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
Digitally
WITH
signed by
MEGHA
MEGHA
SHREEDHAR
SHREEDHAR PARAB
WRIT PETITION NO.5704 OF 2023
PARAB Date:
2024.08.09
13:59:06
+0530
Nath Udhav Jadhav ....Petitioner
V/s.
___Page No.1 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5706 OF 2023
Rupali Dilip Ahire ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5688 OF 2023
Laxman Bapurao Dond ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5708 OF 2023
Pradip Kisan Tembhekar ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5703 OF 2023
Rupali Ramchandra Gavankar ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5691 OF 2023
Radhika Dattu Bhangare ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5906 OF 2023
___Page No.2 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
Sangita Vilas Jamdade ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5705 OF 2023
Rohini Ravindra Dumbre ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5707 OF 2023
Pooja Dattatraya Shingade ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5702 OF 2023
Vanita Lalsingh Rathod ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5721 OF 2023
Usha Laxman Sonawane ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5696 OF 2023
Namdev Ramu Landge ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
___Page No.3 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5720 OF 2023
Sarika Mahendra Ambudkar ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5695 OF 2023
Pallavi Shivaji Kamble ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5693 OF 2023
Sharmila Badansingh Chavhan ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5698 OF 2023
Omkar Bharat Jadhav ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5713 OF 2023
Aashwini Narayan Salgar and Anr. ....Petitioners
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5697 OF 2023
Namrata Nitin Supe ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
___Page No.4 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5711 OF 2023
Divya Waman Rathod ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5710 OF 2023
Puja Sunil Khandare ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5699 OF 2023
Lalita Madhukar Patil ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5719 OF 2023
Kishan Ganapati Gaikwad ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5712 OF 2023
Sanghamitra Babarao Avachar and ....Petitioner
Ors.
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5714 OF 2023
Anita Babasaheb Morale ....Petitioner
___Page No.5 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5716 OF 2023
Priyadarshan Prataprao Gayakawad ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5717 OF 2023
Sunil Tukaram Mang ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5694 OF 2023
Aruna Kailas Thubal ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5701 OF 2023
Avinash Ashok Masane and Anr. ....Petitioners
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5715 OF 2023
Vimal Ankush Shinde ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
___Page No.6 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
WRIT PETITION NO.5734 OF 2023
Mohasin Ayubsab Shaikh ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5722 OF 2023
Nandini Jitendra Ukrande ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5732 OF 2023
Sapna Rajendra Dhainje ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5731 OF 2023
Vishwas bhagwan Malve ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5687 OF 2023
Lata Giridharilal Suvarnkar ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5728 OF 2023
Mukta Balbhim Sonkamble ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
___Page No.7 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5690 OF 2023
Dhanashree Bharat Bhosale ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5723 OF 2023
Gangaram Vishwas Kajrekar ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5727 OF 2023
Manisha A. Waghmare ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5730 OF 2023
Sneha Madhusudan Malsure ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5685 OF 2023
Savita Manikrao Bodke ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5725 OF 2023
Sonubai Binayakrao Dudhate ....Petitioner
V/s.
___Page No.8 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5729 OF 2023
Vivek Satish Mohite ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5733 OF 2023
Ashwini Shivaji Ghodke ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5616 OF 2023
Manju Valmik Koli ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5689 OF 2023
Swati Suresh Waghmare ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5726 OF 2023
Tasmiya Sadik Shaikh ....Petitioner
___Page No.9 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5724 OF 2023
Ravichandra Ashok Dhavale ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST)NO.11588 OF 2023
Nitin Shankar Sabale ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6109 OF 2023
Gloriya Thomas Jagale ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6110 OF 2023
Namrata Makarand Pingale ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6111 OF 2023
Miss Seema Narayan Pal ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
___Page No.10 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
WRIT PETITION NO.6145 OF 2023
Pornima Devanand Bangade ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6132 OF 2023
Varsha Parmeshwar Waghmare ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6146 OF 2023
Arti P. Sutar and Anr. ....Petitioners
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6142 OF 2023
Jyoti Arun Sangle ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6141 OF 2023
Giri Satyabhama Gundu ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6134 OF 2023
Miss Chitra Anton Bramhane ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
___Page No.11 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6140 OF 2023
Taware Shubhangi Babasaheb ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6139 OF 2023
Alka Ramesh Sonawane ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6133 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.21275 OF 2024
AND
INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.21279 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.6133 OF 2023
Khatavkar Poonam Anukush ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6144 OF 2023
Dipali Prakash Gole ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6135 OF 2023
Vaishali Shahaji Kokate ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
___Page No.12 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6143 OF 2023
Punam Ajay Arkade ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6138 OF 2023
Hemlata Sumansingh Valve ....Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6147 OF 2023
Supriya Dynoba Kachare and Anr. ....Petitioners
V/s.
Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9903 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation and Anr.
V/s.
Manju Valmik Koli ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9895 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation and Anr.
V/s.
Savita Manikrao Bodke ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9921 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation and Anr.
V/s.
Laxman Bapurav Dond ....Respondent
___Page No.13 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9899 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation and Anr.
V/s.
Lata Girdharilal Suvarnkar ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9957 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation and Anr.
V/s.
Dhanshree Bharat Bhosale ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9913 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation and Anr.
V/s.
Radhika Dattu Bhangare ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9917 OF 2023
The Municipal Commissioner Pimpri ....Petitioners
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr.
V/s.
Avinash Ashok Masane and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9912 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation and Anr.
V/s.
Mangesh Mahadev Shete ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9930 OF 2023
The Municipal Commissioner Pimpri ....Petitioners
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr.
V/s.
Anita Babasaheb Morale ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9815 OF 2023
___Page No.14 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation and Anr.
V/s.
Vinita Lalsingh Rathod ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9958 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation and Anr. Thr. Its The
Commissioner
V/s.
Pramila Kiran Mane ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9933 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation and Anr. Thr. Its The
Commissioner and Anr.
V/s.
Swati Suresh Waghmare ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9934 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation Thr. Its the
Commissioner and Anr.
V/s.
Pradip Kisan Tembhekar ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9870 OF 2023
The Municipal Commissioner Pimpri ....Petitioners
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr.
V/s.
Sanghmitra Babarao Avachar ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9885 OF 2023
The Municipal Commissioner Pimpri ....Petitioners
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr.
V/s.
Vrushali Prasahnt Amrutkar ....Respondent
WITH
___Page No.15 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
WRIT PETITION NO.9890 OF 2023
The Municipal Commissioner Pimpri ....Petitioners
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr.
V/s.
Sunil Tukaram Mang ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9929 OF 2023
The Municipal Commissioner Pimpri ....Petitioners
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr.
V/s.
Priyadarshan Prataprao Gayakwad ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9883 OF 2023
The Municipal Commissioner Pimpri ....Petitioners
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
and Anr.
V/s.
Kishan Ganapati Gaikwad ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9925 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation thr. its Commissioner
and Anr.
V/s.
Gangaram Vishwas Kajrekar ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9868 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioner
Corporation thr. Its the
Commissioner
V/s.
Ravindra Ashok Dhavale ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9851 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioner
Corporation thr. Its Commissioner
V/s.
Sonubai Vinayakrao Dudhate ....Respondent
___Page No.16 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9848 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioner
Corporation thr. Its Commissioner
V/s.
Tasmiya Sadik Shaikh ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9954 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioner
Corporation thr. its Commissioner
V/s.
Manisha A. Waghmare ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9946 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation thr. Its Commissioner
and Anr.
V/s.
Mukta Balbhim Sonkamble ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9952 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioner
Corporation thr. its Commissioner
V/s.
Sneha Madhusudan Malsure ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9846 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioner
Corporation thr. its Commissioner
V/s.
Vivek Satish Mohite ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9955 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioner
Corporation thr. Its Commissioner
V/s.
Sapna Rajendra Dhainje ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9879 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
___Page No.17 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
Corporation thr. Its Commissioner &
Anr.
V/s.
Ashwini Shivaji Ghodke ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9936 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation thr. Its the
Commissioner and Anr.
V/s.
Sangita Vilas Jamdade ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9939 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation thr. Its Commissioner &
Anr.
V/s.
Pooja Dattatraya Shingade ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9947 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation thr. Its Commissioner &
Anr.
V/s.
Pallavi Shivaji Kamble ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9858 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation thr. its Commissioner &
Anr. ....Petitioners
V/s.
Sharmila Badansing Chavhan ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9941 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation thr. its Commissioner &
Anr. ....Petitioners
V/s.
Vishwas Bhagwan Malve ....Respondent
WITH
___Page No.18 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
WRIT PETITION NO.9937 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation thr. Its the
Commissioner and Anr.
V/s.
Aruna Kailas Thubal ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9907 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation thr. Its the
Commissioner & Anr.
V/s.
Mohasin Ayubsab Shaikh ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10053 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation thr. its Commissioner
and Anr. ....Petitioners
V/s.
Rupali Ramchandra Gavankar ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9998 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation thr. its the
Commissioner & Anr. ....Petitioners
V/s.
Lalita Madhukar Patil ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9951 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation thr. Its Commissioner &
Anr. ....Petitioners
V/s.
Omkar Bharat Jadhav ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9959 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation thr. Its Commissioner &
Anr. ....Petitioners
V/s.
___Page No.19 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
Rupali Dilip Ahire ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9893 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation thr. its Commissioner &
Anr.
V/s.
Sarika Mahendra Ambudkar ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9889 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation thr. its Commissioner &
Anr.
V/s.
Usha Laxman Sonawane ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9944 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation thr. its Commissioner &
Anr.
V/s.
Rohini Ravindra Dumbre ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9942 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation thr. its Commissioner &
Anr. ....Petitioners
V/s.
Nath Udhav Jadhav ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9853 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation thr. Its Commissioner &
Anr. ....Petitioners
V/s.
Rushikesh Deepakrao More ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9949 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation thr. Its Commissioner &
Anr. ....Petitioners
___Page No.20 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
V/s.
Divya Waman Rathod ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9908 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation thr. its Commissioner &
Anr. ....Petitioners
V/s.
Puja Sunil Khandare ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9876 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation thr. its Commissioner &
Anr. ....Petitioners
V/s.
Namrata Nitin Supe ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9932 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation thr. its Commissioner &
Anr. ....Petitioners
V/s.
Vimal Ankush Shinde ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9969 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation thr. its Commissioner &
Anr. ....Petitioners
V/s.
Supriya Dynoba Kachare and Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9972 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation thr. its Commissioner &
Anr. ....Petitioners
V/s.
Poonam Ajay Arkade ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9981 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
___Page No.21 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
Corporation thr. the Commissioner
& Anr.
V/s.
Pournima Devanand Bagade ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9980 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation thr. the Commissioner
& Anr. ....Petitioners
V/s.
Alka Ramesh Sonawane ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9517 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation thr. the Commissioner
& Anr.
V/s.
Chitra Anton Bramhane ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9968 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation thr. the Commissioner
& Anr.
V/s.
Jyoti Arun Sangle ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9971 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation thr. the Commissioner
& Anr.
V/s.
Namrata Makrand Pingle ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9974 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation thr. the Commissioner
& Anr.
V/s.
Vaishali Shahaji Kokate ....Respondent
___Page No.22 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9979 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation thr. the Commissioner
& Anr.
V/s.
Sarika Mahendra Ambudkar ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9976 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation thr. the Commissioner
& Anr.
V/s.
Punam Ankush Khatavkar ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9967 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation thr. the Commissioner
& Anr.
V/s.
Arti Purshuram Sutar and Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9978 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation thr. the Commissioner
& Anr.
V/s.
Varsha Parmeshwar Waghmare ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9973 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation thr. the Commissioner
& Anr.
V/s.
Deepali Prakash Gole ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9970 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation thr. Its thr.
Commissioner & Anr.
V/s.
___Page No.23 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
Nitin Shankar Sable ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9977 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation thr. Its thr.
Commissioner & Anr.
V/s.
Satyabhama Gundu Giri ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9975 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation thr. Its thr.
Commissioner & Anr.
V/s.
Seema Naryan Pal ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9661 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation thr. the Commissioner
& Anr.
V/s.
Namdev Ramu Landge ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9653 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation thr. the Commissioner
& Anr.
V/s.
Nandini Jitendra Ukrande ....Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9673 OF 2023
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ....Petitioners
Corporation thr. Its Commissioner &
Anr.
V/s.
Ashwini Narayan Salgar and Anr. ....Respondents
________________________________________________________________
Mr. Kiran Bapat, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Deepak R. More a/w Mr.
Shivram A Gawade, for PCMC, Petitioner in WP/9966/2023,
WP/9969/2023, WP/9972/2023, WP/9981/2023, WP/9980/2023,
___Page No.24 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
WP/9517/2023, WP/9968/2023, WP/9971/2023, WP/9974/2023,
WP/9979/2023, WP/9976/2023, WP/9967/2023, WP/9978/2023,
WP/9973/2023, WP/9970/2023, WP/9977/2023, WP/9975/2023
Mr. Kiran Bapat, Senior Advocate A/W Mr. G.H. Keluskar, for
Corporation, Petitioner in WP/9903/2023, WP/9895/2023,
WP/9921/2023, WP/9899/2023, WP/9957/2023, WP/9913/2023,
WP/9917/2023, WP/9912/2023, WP/9930/2023, WP/9815/2023,
WP/9958/2023, WP/9933/2023, WP/9934/2023, WP/9870/2023,
WP/9885/2023, WP/9890/2023, WP/9929/2023, WP/9883/2023,
WP/9925/2023, WP/9868/2023, WP/9851/2023, WP/9848/2023,
WP/9954/2023, WP/9946/2023, WP/9952/2023, WP/9846/2023,
WP/9955/2023, WP/9879/2023, WP/9936/2023, WP/9939/2023,
WP/9947/2023, WP/9858/2023, WP/9941/2023, WP/9937/2023,
WP/9907/2023, WP/10053/2023, WP/9998/2023, WP/9951/2023,
WP/9959/2023, WP/9893/2023, WP/9889/2023, WP/9944/2023,
WP/9942/2023, WP/9853/2023, WP/9949/2023, WP/9908/2023,
WP/9876/2023, WP/9932/2023, WP/9661/2023, WP/9653/2023,
WP/9673/2023 and for Respondent in WP/5718/2023, WP/5709/2023,
WP/5704/2023, WP/5706/2023, WP/5688/2023, WP/5708/2023,
WP/5703/2023, WP/5691/2023, WP/5906/2023, WP/5705/2023,
WP/5707/2023, WP/5702/2023, WP/5721/2023, WP/5696/2023,
WP/5720/2023, WP/5695/2023, WP/5693/2023, WP/5698/2023,
WP/5713/2023, WP/5697/2023, WP/5711/2023, WP/5710/2023,
WP/5699/2023, WP/5719/2023, WP/5700/2023, WP/5712/2023, ,
WP/5714/2023, WP/5716/2023, WP/5717/2023, WP/5692/2023,
WP/5694/2023, WP/5701/2023, WP/5715/2023, WP/5734/2023,
WP/5722/2023, WP/5732/2023, WP/5731/2023, WP/5687/2023,
WP/5728/2023, WP/5690/2023, WP/5723/2023, WP/5727/2023,
WP/5730/2023, WP/5685/2023, WP/5725/2023, WP/5729/2023,
WP/5733/2023, WP/5616/2023, WP/5689/2023, WP/5726/2023,
WP/5724/2023
Mr. Nitin Kulkarni a/w Mr. Avinash Belge, for Petitioner in
WP/5718/2023 WP/5709/2023, WP/5704/2023, WP/5706/2023,
WP/5688/2023, WP/5708/2023, WP/5703/2023, WP/5691/2023,
WP/5906/2023, WP/5705/2023, WP/5707/2023, WP/5702/2023,
WP/5721/2023, WP/5696/2023, WP/5720/2023, WP/5695/2023,
WP/5693/2023, WP/5698/2023, WP/5732/2023, WP/5731/2023,
WP/5687/2023, WP/5728/2023, WP/5690/2023, WP/5723/2023,
WP/5727/2023, WP/5730/2023, WP/5685/2023, WP/5725/2023,
WP/5729/2023, WP/5733/2023, WP/5616/2023, WP/5689/2023,
WP/5726/2023, WP/5724/2023, WP/5713/2023, WP/5697/2023,
WP/5711/2023, WP/5710/2023, WP/5699/2023, WP/5719/2023,
WP/5700/2023, WP/5712/2023, WP/5714/2023, WP/5716/2023,
WP/5717/2023, WP/5692/2023, WP/5694/2023, WP/5701/2023,
WP/5715/2023, WP/5734/2023, WP/5722/2023, WP(ST)/11588/2023
___Page No.25 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
and for Respondent in WP/9903/2023, WP/9895/2023, WP/9921/2023,
WP/9899/2023, WP/9957/2023, WP/9913/2023, WP/9917/2023,
WP/9912/2023, WP/9930/2023, WP/9815/2023, WP/9958/2023,
WP/9933/2023, WP/9934/2023, WP/9870/2023, WP/9885/2023,
WP/9890/2023, WP/9929/2023, WP/9883/2023, WP/9925/2023,
WP/9868/2023, WP/9851/2023, WP/9848/2023, WP/9954/2023,
WP/9946/2023, WP/9952/2023, WP/9846/2023, WP/9955/2023,
WP/9879/2023, WP/9936/2023, WP/9939/2023, WP/9947/2023,
WP/9858/2023, WP/9941/2023, WP/9937/ 2023, WP/9907/2023,
WP/10053/2023, WP/9998/2023, WP/9951/2023, WP/9959/2023,
WP/9893/2023, WP/9889/2023, WP/9944/2023, WP/9942/2023,
WP/9853/2023, WP/9949/2023, WP/9908/2023, WP/9876/2023,
WP/9932/2023, WP/9970/2023, WP/9661/2023, WP/9653/2023,
WP/9673/2023
Dr. Uday Warunjikar with Mr. Sumit Kate & Mr. Siddhesh Pilankar, for
Petitioner in WP/6110/2023, WP/6142/2023, WP/6141/2023,
WP/6140/2023, WP/6139/2023, WP/6138/2023, WP/6147/2023,
WP/6109/2023, WP/6111/2023, WP/6145/2023, WP/6132/2023,
WP/6146/2023, WP/6134/2023, WP/6133/2023, WP/6144/2023,
WP/6135/2023, WP/6143/2023.
________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Judgment Reserved On : 24 July 2024.
Judgment Pronounced On :8 August 2024.
JUDGMENT:
1) These are cross Petitions filed by Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation and its contract employees challenging various orders
passed by the Industrial Court-Pune, partly allowing the Complaints
holding that the contract employees are entitled for salary and
consequential benefits at par with minimum pay scale of regularly
engaged employees of the Municipal Corporation holding the same post
as that of Complainants from the date of joining services by them. The
Municipal Corporation is aggrieved by the direction for payment of
salary in minimum of pay-scale whereas the contract employees are
aggrieved by the orders passed by the Industrial Court to the extent of
non-grant of relief of permanency.
___Page No.26 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
2) Pimpri-Chichwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC) operates
various hospitals, dispensaries, OPD units, etc. to offer medical services
to the citizens residing in the city of Pimpri-Chinchwad. The hospitals
run by the Municipal Corporation including Yashwantrao Chavan
Memorial Hospital, Talera Hospital, Yamuna Hospital, Bhosari Hospital,
Jijamata Hospital, Sangvi Hospital, Akurdi Hospital, Thegaon Hospital,
etc.
3) It appears that advertisements were issued from time to time
for filling up of various posts in such hospitals and dispensaries such as
staff nurse, X-ray Technician, Blood Bank Technician, MSW, Male and
Female Ward Assistants, Cleaners, Pharmacist, Data Entry Operator, etc.
The advertisements were issued for engaging staff on contract and
honorarium basis for a period of six months. All the contract employees
involved in the present petitions have been initially engaged on various
posts indicated above on honorarium and contract basis initially for a
period of six months.
4) By way of illustration, facts in the case of couple of contract
employees are discussed. While most of the contract employees involved
in the Petitions have joined for the first time in the yar 2020, cases of
two employees who have rendered longest period of service are
recorded.
5) Pramila K. Mane is Petitioner in Writ Petition No.5692 of 2023,
and Respondent in cross Petition No.9958 of 2023 filed by PCMC.
Yashwantrao Chavan Memorial Hospital (YCMH) is one of the Hospitals
operated by PCMC. It appears that in the year 2016, the municipal
administration felt the need for engagement of extra manpower to tackle
the load of patients in the hospital. Accordingly, the Municipal
___Page No.27 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
Commissioner submitted a proposal dated 6 August 2016 for creation of
14 posts in the said hospital on consolidated honorarium for a period of
six months. The proposal of the Municipal Commissioner was
sanctioned by the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation by
adopting the resolution dated 9 August 2016. Accordingly, advertisement
was issued in the local newspapers on 12 August 2016. Several
candidates appeared in pursuance of the said advertisement and after
scrutinising all applications, interviews were conducted by the Selection
Committee. As per the recommendations made by the Selection
Committee the Municipal Corporation issued order dated 6 September
2016 appointing total 16 personnel on various posts on fixed honorarium
as indicated in the braket against each post such as Surgeon (Rs.60,000),
Intensivist (Rs.50,000/-), Physician (Rs.50,000/-), Orthopedic Surgeon
(Rs.50,000/-), ENT (Rs.60,000 / Rs.55,000), X-ray Technician
(Rs.10,000 /Rs.16,000/ Rs.14,000), Dialysis Technician (Rs.16,000),
Statistician (Rs.15,000) and Data Entry Operator (Rs.12,000). The said
personnel were appointed for the period from 7 September 2016 to 5
March 2017 (180 days) on various terms and conditions incorporated in
the letter dated 6 September 2016. The order indicates that reservation
roster was followed while making the engagements. Condition No. 10
contained a specific stipulation that the appointments were temporary
and that the appointees had no right to claim regular appointment.
Under Clause 9, candidates were required to submit undertakings/bonds
not to claim appointments in regular pay scale. Smt. Pramila K. Mane
came to be appointed by order dated 6 September 2016 on the post of X-
Ray Technician against open/SC category on monthly honorarium of
Rs.10,000/-. It appears that her appointment was extended by order
dated 12 March 2017 from 7 March 2017 to 6 May 2017 after giving one
day’s break.
___Page No.28 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
6) Though the above two orders dated 6 September 2016 and 12
March 2017 are produced at Exhibit-A and Exhibit-B to the Petition, it
appears that Petitioner-Pramila K. Mane contended in her Complaint that
she was appointed by Municipal Corporation on 9 September 2014 and
that she continued as such till 6 May 2017 i.e. till she filed complaint
(ULP) No.61 of 2017 praying for benefit of permanency on completion of
240 days of service. Complaint was resisted by Municipal Corporation by
filing written statement relying on terms and conditions of the order of
initial engagement. It appears that Petitioner-Pramila K. Mane filed
application seeking interim relief for continuation of her services and for
restraining the Corporation from terminating her services during
pendency of the complaint. Industrial Court passed order dated 18 April
2019 on the said application at Exhibit-U2, rejecting the said application
referring to the terms and conditions of initial engagement order and
referring to the judgment of this Court in Smt. Mangal Bharat Shinde vs.
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and Anr. 1 in which Talera
Hospital, Chichwad was not held to be an Industrial Undertaking within
the meaning of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and that provisions of
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are not applicable to
the said hospital. The Industrial Court therefore held that even YCMC is
not an industry or establishment. This is how the application for interim
relief came to be rejected by the Industrial Court by order dated 18 April
2019. The said order was stayed on 6 June 2019. She filed Writ Petition
in this Court challenging the interim order, in which this Court directed
maintenance of status-quo till disposal of the complaint by the Industrial
Court. This is how the Petitioner-Pramila Mane apparently continued to
remain in service. Complaint (ULP) No.61 of 2017 filed by her has been
decided by the judgment and order dated 20 March 2023. The Industrial
Court has held that she is entitled for salary and consequential benefits
at par with minimum pay scale of regularly engaged employees of PCMC
1
2018 (6)Mh.L.J.
___Page No.29 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
holding the same post from the date of joining service. The relief of
permanency however is not granted. The Municipal Corporation was
directed not to terminate her services for a period of one month.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20 March 2023, Petitioner-
Pramila K. Mane has filed Writ Petition No.5692 of 2023. By order dated
20 April 2023, this Court extended the interim protection granted by the
Industrial Court and the same continues to operate till date. The
Municipal Corporation has filed Writ Petition No.9958 of 2023
challenging the direction for payment of wages at the minimum of pay
scale in the impugned judgment and order dated 20 March 2023 passed
by the Industrial Court.
7) Smt. Vrushali Prashant Amrutkar is Petitioner in Writ Petition
No.5700 of 2023 filed by her and Respondent in cross Writ Petition
No.9885 of 2023 filed by the Municipal Corporation. It appears that an
advertisement was issued by the Municipal Corporation in the
newspapers for filling up various posts in the Medical Department on
consolidated honorarium after seeking Standing Committee’s approval
dated 16 March 2015. Candidates were subjected to written examination
and the Selection Committee prepared select list in accordance with
marks obtained by the candidates in written examination as well as by
considering the reservation roster on 7 July 2015. By order dated 20 July
2015, 27 persons were engaged on the posts of Pharmacists, Lab
Technicians, X-ray Technician, Physiotherapist, Male Ward Boy on
various amounts of honorarium indicated in the order for the period of
six months as specified in the order dated 20 July 2015. Accordingly,
Smt. Vrushali Amrutkar was engaged on the post of Lab Technician on
honorarium of Rs.17,000/- for the period from 24 August 2015 to 23
February 2016. The appointment order contained specific stipulation for
filing of undertaking/bond for not claiming permanency in regular pay
scale. A fresh advertisement was issued for filling up various posts in
___Page No.30 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
YCMH, for which interviews were held on 6 May 2016. Name of
Petitioner -Vrushali Amrutkar was placed at waiting list and by order
dated 11 June 2016, she was offered engagement on the post of Blood
Bank Technician in YCMH for a period of 6 months by order dated 11
June 2016. This is how there was no connection between the initial
engagement of Smt. Vrushali Amrutkar as Lab Technician on 20 July
2015 and as Blood Bank Technician on 11 June 2016. It appears that the
engagement of Smt. Vrushali Amrutkar extended for a period of three
months by orders dated 19 December 2016, 7 March 2017 and 26 April
2017. She filed Complaint (ULP) No.80 of 2017 seeking the relief of
permanency. Her application for interim relief at Exhibit-U2 was rejected
by the Industrial Court by order dated 18 April 2019 which became
subject matter of challenge before this Court in Writ Petition No. 5700 of
2023 in which order of staus quo was granted till decision of the
Complaint. Complaint (ULP) No. 80 of 2017 filed by her has been partly
allowed by the judgment and order dated 20 March 2023 holding that
she is entitled for salary and consequential benefits at par with minimum
pay scale of regularly engaged employees of PCMC holding the same
post from the date of joining service. The relief of permanency however
is not granted. The Municipal Corporation was directed not to terminate
her services for a period of one month. Aggrieved by the judgment and
order dated 20 March 2023, Smt. Vrushali Prashant Amrutkar has filed
Writ Petition No.5700 of 2023. By order dated 20 April 2023, this Court
extended the interim protection granted by the Industrial Court and the
same continues to operate till date. The Municipal Corporation has filed
Writ Petition No.9885 of 2023 challenging the direction for payment of
wages at the minimum of pay scale in the impugned judgment and order
dated 20 March 2023 passed by the Industrial Court.
8) In the above manner, several employees have been engaged by
the Municipal Corporation from time to time on various paramedical
___Page No.31 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
posts in Municipal Hospitals, Dispensaries, etc. The charts showing brief
particulars about the employees is as under:-
COMPLAINT Date of Order
SR. WRIT PETITION NO NAME DATE OF HOSPITAL DESIGNATION COMPLAINT (ULP) NO.
passed by the
JOINING FILED ON
High Court
NO.
giving interim
protection
during the
pendency of
complaint.
1 WP/5692/2023 PRAMILA KIRAN 09-09-14 YCM Hospital X-Ray 20.4.2017 61 of 2017
with Cross WP MANE Technician.
31.01.202
No. 9958/2023
0
2 WP/ POOJA DATTATRAYA 30.3.2020 Talera Hospital Staff Nurse 20.12.2020 257 of
5707/2023with SHINGADE 2020 02.9.2021
Cross WP No. .
9939/2023
3 WP/5700/2023 VRUSHALI PRASHANT 20.7.2015 Yamunanagar Blood Bank 27.4.2017 80 of 2017
with Cross WP AMRUTKAR Hospital Technician 31.01.202
No. 9885/2023 0
4 WP/5716/2023 PRIYADARSHAN 15-05-17 YCM Hospital Blood Bank 02.11.2018 282 of
with Cross WP. PRATAPRAO GAIKWAD Technician 2018 31.01.202
No. 9929/2023 0
5 WP/5696/2023 NAMDEV RAMU 15-06-17 Talera Hospital Staff Nurse 25.3.2019 80 of 2019
with Cross WP. LANDGE 02.9.2021
No. 9961/2023
6 WP/5701/2023 TUKARAM 13-11-17 YCM Hospital X-Ray 02.11.2018 284 of
with Cross WP JAGANNATH PAWAR Technician. 2018
31.01.202
No. 9917/2023 AVINASH ASHOK
1
MASANE
7 WP/5712/2023 SANGHMITRA 13-11-17 YCM Hospital Staff Nurse 02.11.2018 281 of
with Cross WP BABARAO AVACHAR 19.12.17 2018
31.01.202
No. 9870/ 2023 SWATI GOBADE
________ 1
POURNIMA
SONAWANE
8 WP/5719/2023 KISHAN GANAPATI 08-12-17 YCM Hospital MSW 02.11.2018 285 of
with Cross WP GAIKWAD 2018
31.01.202
No. 9983/2023
0
9 WP/ ASHWINI NARAYAN 06-04-18 Bhosari Staff Nurse 25.3.2019 87 of 2019
5713/2023with SALGAR Hospital
02.9.2021
Cross WP No. GEETA KENDRE
9673/2023
10 WP/5722/2023 NANDINI JITENDRA 06-04-18 Yamunanagar Staff Nurse 25.3.2019 77 of 2019 02.9.2021
with Cross WP UKRANDE Hospital
No. 9653/2023
11 WP/5717/2023 SUNIL TUKARAM 07-02-19 YCM Hospital Blood Bank _ . . 2020 13 of 2020
with Cross WP MANG Technician 31.01.202
No. 9890/2023 0
12 WP/5691/2023 RADHIKA DATTU 10.02.20 YCM Hospital Stree Kaksh 24.12.2020 222 of 08.3.2021
with Cross WP BHANGARE Madatnis 2020
No. 9913/2023
13 WP/5697/2023 NAMRATA NITIN SUPE 24.12.20 Bhosari Stree Kaksh 24.12.2020 268 of 02.9.2021
with Cross WP Hospital Madatnis 2020
No. 9876/2023
14 WP/5705/2023 ROHINI RAVINDRA 27.7.21 Yamunanagar Safai Sevak 24.12.2020 260 of 02.9.2021
with Cross WP DUMBRE Hospital 2020
___Page No.32 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
No. 9944/2023
15 WP/5706/2023 RUPALI DILIP AHIRE 28-01-20 Bhosari Safai Sevak 24.12.2020 261 of 02.9.2021
with Cross WP Hospital 2020
No. 9959/2023
16 WP/5694/2023 ARUNA KAILAS 29-01-20 Jijamata Safai Sevak 24.12.2020 267 of 02.9.2021
with Cross WP THUBAL Hospital 2020
No. 9937/2023
17 WP/5734/2023 MOHASIN AYUBSAB 29-01-20 Sangavi Pharamacist 24.12.2020 270 of 02.9.2021
with Cross WP SHAIKH Hospital 2020
No. 9907/2023
18 WP/5693/2023 SHARMILA 30-01-20 Talera Hospital Staff Nurse 24.12.2020 256 of 02.9.2021
with Cross WP BADANSING 2020
No. 9858/2023 CHAVHAN
19 WP/5695/2023 PALLAVI SHIVAJI 30-01-20 Talera Hospital Pharamacist 24.12.2020 266 of 02.9.2021
with Cross WP KAMBLE 2010
No. 9947/2023
20 WP/5704/2023 NATH UDHAV JADHAV 30-01-20 Talera Hospital Staff Nurse 24.12.2020 257 of 02.9.2021
with Cross WP 2020
No. 9942/2023
21 WP/5710/2023 PUJA SUNIL 28.01.20 YCM Hospital Staff Nurse 28.01.2020 253 of 02.9.2021
with Cross WP KHANDARE 2020
No. 9908/2023
22 WP/5711/2023 DIVYA WAMAN 30-01-20 Talera Hospital Staff Nurse 24.12.2020 252 of 02.9.2021
with Cross WP RATHOD 2020
No. 9949/2023
23 WP/5718/2023 RUSHIKESH 30-01-20 Talera Hospital Pharamacist 24,12,2929 257 of 02.9.2021
with Cross WP DEEPAKRAO MORE 2020
No. 9853/2023
24 WP/5721/2023 USHA LAXMAN 30-01-20 Talera Hospital Staff Nurse 24.12.2020 255 of 02.9.2021
with Cross WP SONAWANE 2020
No. 9889/2023
25 WP/5703/2023 RUPALI 01-02-20 Akurdi Safai Sevak 24.12.2020 262 of 02.9.2021
with Cross WP No RAMCHANDRA Hospital 2020
10053/2023 GAVANKAR
26 WP/5730/2023 SNEHA 10-02-20 YCM Hospital Lab 24.12.2020 242 of 08.3.2021
with Cross WP MADHUSUDAN Technician 2020
No. 9952/2023 MALSURE
27 WP/5732/2023 SAPNA RAJENDRA 10-02-20 YCM Hospital Lab 24.12.2020 244 of 08.3.2021
with Cross WP DHAINJE Technician 2020
No.9955/2023
28 WP/5906/2023 SANGITA VILAS 10-02-20 YCM Hospital Stree Kaksh 24.12.2020 227 of 08.3.2021
with Cross WP JAMDADE Madatnis 2020
No 9936/2023
29 WP/5690/2023 DHANASHREE 11-02-20 YCM Hospital X-Ray 24.12.2020 232 of 08.3.2021
with Cross WP BHARAT BHOSALE Technician. 2020
No. 9957/2023
30 WP/5709/2023 MANGESH MAHADEV 11-02-20 YCM Hospital Purush 24.12.2020 241 of 08.3.2021
with Cross WP SHETE Kaksh 2020
No. 9912/2023 Madatnis
31 WP/5689/2023 SWATI SURESH 12-02-20 YCM Hospital X-Ray 24.12.2020 231 of 08.3.2021
with Cross WP WAGHMARE Technician. 2020
No. 9933/2023
32 WP/5698/2023 OMKAR BHARAT 12-02-20 Bhosari X-Ray 24.12.2020 272 of 02.9.2021
with Cross WP JADHAV Hospital Technician 2020
No. 9951/2023
33 WP/5699/2023 LALITA MADHUKAR 12-02-20 Yamunanagar Safai Sevak 24.12.2020 273 of 02.9.2021
with Cross WP PATIL Hospital 2020
No. 9998/2023
34 WP/5715/2023 VIMAL ANKUSH 12-02-20 Bhosari Safai Sevak 24.12.2020 274 of 02.9.2021
with Cross WP SHINDE Hospital 2020
No. 9932/2023
___Page No.33 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
35 WP/5729/2023 VIVEK SATISH 13-02-20 YCM Hospital X-Ray ________ 230 of 08.3.2021
with Cross WP MOHITE Technician. 2020
No. 9846/2023
36 WP/5724/2023 RAVICHANDRA 14-02-20 YCM Hospital Blood Bank ________ 228 of 08.3.2021
with Cross WP ASHOK DHAWALE Technician 2020
No. 9868/2023
37 WP/5688/2023 LAXMAN BAPURAO 15-02-20 YCM Hospital Data Entry 15.12.2020 224 of 08.3.2021
with Cross WP DOND Operator 2020
No. 9921/2023
38 WP/5731/2023 VISHWAS BHAGWAN 15-02-20 YCM Hospital Data Entry 24.12.2 225 of 08.3.2021
with Cross WP MALVE Operator 020 2020
No. 9941/2023
39 WP/5687/2023 LATA GIRIDHARILAL 17-02-20 YCM Hospital MSW 24.12.2 229 of 08.3.2021
with Cross WP SUVARNKAR 020 2020
No. 9899/2023
40 WP/5723/2023 GANGARAM VISHWAS 13-03-20 YCM Hospital Purush 24.12.2 233 of 08.3.2021
with Cross WP KAJREKAR Kaksh 020 2020
No. 9925/2023 Madatnis
41 WP/5725/2023 SONUBAI 16-03-20 YCM Hospital Data Entry 20.12.2 239 of 08.3.2021
with Cross WP VINAYAKRAO Operator 020 2020
No. 9851/2023 DUDHATE
42 WP/5728/2023 MUKTA BALBHIM 16-03-20 YCM Hospital Dialysis 21.12.2 238 of \
with Cross WP SONKAMBLE Technician 020 2020 08.3.2021
No. 9946/2023
43 WP/5733/2023 ASHWINI SHIVAJI 16-03-20 YCM Hospital Staff Nurse 24.12.2 237 of 08.3.2021
with Cross WP GHODKE 020 2020
No. 9879/2023
44 WP/5726/2023 TASMIYA SADIK 21-03-20 YCM Hospital Staff Nurse 24.12.2 236 of 08.3.2
with Cross WP SHAIKH 020 2020 0217
No. 9848/2023 pt
45 WP/5720/2023 SARIKA MHENDRA 30.01.20 Thergaon Staff Nurse 24.12.2 251 of 02.9.2021
with Cross WP AMBUDKAR Hospital 020 2020
No. 9893/2023
46 WP/5685/2023 SAVITA MANIKRAO 29-03-20 YCM Hospital Staff Nurse ______ 287 of 08.3.2021
with Cross WP BODKE __ 2020
No. 9895/2023
47 WP/5702/2023 VANITA LALSING 30-03-20 YCM Hospital Stree Kaksh 24.12.2020 226 of 08.3.2021
with Cross WP RATHOD Madatnis 2020
No. 9815/2023
48 WP/5708/2023 PRADIP KISAN 30-03-20 YCM Hospital Pharamacist 24.12.2020 240 of 08.3.2021
with Cross WP TEMBHEKAR 2020
No. 9934/2023
49 WP/5616/2023 MANJU VALMIK KOLI 07-04-20 YCM Hospital Staff Nurse 24.12.2020 235 of 08.3.2021
with Cross WP 2020
No. 9903/2023
275 of
50 WP/5714/2023 ANITA BABASAHEB YCM Hospital Staff Nurse 30.10.2018
2018
with Cross WP MORALE 31.01.2020
No. 9930/2023 12.01.17
51 WP/5727/2023 MANISHA ANURATH YCM Hospital Staff Nurse 30.12.2020 277 of 2020 08.3.2021
with Cross WP WAGHMARE Resignation
No. 9954 of
2023
Sr Writ Petition Party Name Date of Hospit Design Compl Compla Date of Interim
No No Joining al ation aint int order
ULP I Filed passed by
No. On Industrial Court
1 WP/ Deepali P. Gole 01/08/2 Y.C.M A.N.M ULP/ 20/04/ 18/04/2019
9973/2023 016 Hospit 60/201 2017
With Cross al 7
WP/6144/20
___Page No.34 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
23
2 WP/ Supriya 14/11/2 Y.C.M Staff ULP/ 02/11/ 18/04/2019
9969/2023 D.Kachare 017 Hospit Nurses 283/20 2018
With Cross Nirmal D.Maroti 18/11/2 al 18
WP/6135/20 Manisha 017
23 I.Medhekar 21/11/2
Bhagyashri 017
A.Mane 07/12/2
017
3 WP/ Pournima D. 11/05/2 Y.C.M Staff ULP/ 24/10/ 18/04/2019
9981/2023 Bagde 017 Hospit Nurse 268/20 2018
With Cross al 18
WP/
6145/2023
4 WP/ Poonam A. 04/07/2 Y.C.M A.N.M ULP/ 27/04/ 18/04/2019
9972/2023 Arkade 016 Hospit 81/201 2017
With Cross al 7
WP/
6143/2023
5 WP/ Punam A. 17/05/2 Y.C.M Staff ULP/ 02/11/ 18/04/2019
9976/2023 Khatavkar 017 Hospit Nurse 283/20 2018
With Cross al 18
WP/
6133/2023
6 WP/ Nitin S. Sable 11/02/2 Y.C.M Ward ULP/ 24/12/ 31/12/2020
9970/2023 020 Hospit Boy 234/20 2020
al 20
7 WP/ Arti P. Sutar 19/08/2 Y.C.M Dialysis ULP/ 02/11/ 18/04/2019
9967/2023 Amol H. 015 Hospit Techni 287/20 2018
With Cross Khandagale 21/06/2 al cian 18
WP/ 017
6146/2023
8 WP/ Varsha P. 11/05/2 Y.C.M Staff ULP/ 24/10/ 18/04/2019
9978/2023 Waghmare 017 Hospit Nurse 269/20 2018
With Cross al 18
WP/
6132/2023
9 WP/ Chitra A. 01/01/2 Y.C.M Staff ULP/ 24/10/ 18/04/2019
9517/2023 Brahmane 016 Hospit Nurse 267/20 2018
With Cross al 18
WP/
6134/2023
10 WP/ Namrata M. 18/09/2 Y.C.M Staff ULP/ 24/12/ 31/12/2020
9971/2023 Pingale 019 Hospit Nurse 223/20 2020
With Cross al 20
WP/
6110/2023
11 WP/ Jyoti A. Sangle 11/08/2 Y.C.M Staff ULP/ 24/10/ 18/04/2019
9968/2023 016 Hospit Nurse 271/20 2018
With Cross al 18
WP/
6142/2023
12 WP/ Vaishali S. 11/05/2 Y.C.M Staff ULP/ 25/03/ 17/01/2020
9974/2023 Kokate 017 Hospit Nurse 78/201 2019
With Cross al 9
WP/
6135/2023
13 WP/ Sarika M. 13/03/2 Talera Staff ULP/ 24/12/ 27/01/2020
9979/2023 Ambudkar 020 Hospit Nurse 251/20 2020
al 20
14 WP/ Satybhama G. 15/11/2 Y.C.M Staff ULP/ 24/10/ 18/04/2019
9977/2023 Giri 017 Hospit Nurse 264/20 2018
With Cross al 18
WP/
6141/2023
15 WP/ Seema N. Pal 11/05/2 Y.C.M Staff ULP/ 24/10/ 18/04/2019
9975/2023 017 Hospit Nurse 266/20 2018
With Cross al 18
WP/
6111/2023
16 WP/ Alka R. 30/11/2 Y.C.M Staff ULP/ 27/10/ 30/10/2017
9980/2023 Sonawane 016 Hospit Nurse 245/20 2017
With Cross al 17
WP/
6139/2023
___Page No.35 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
17 WP/ Hemlata S. Valvi 11/05/2 Y.C.M Staff ULP/ 24/10/ 11/05/2017
9966/2023 017 Hospit Nurse 265/20 2018
With Cross al 18
WP/
6138/2023
9) As observed above, the Petitions filed by Municipal Corporation
challenge the directions given by the Industrial Court for payment of
salary and consequential benefits at the minimum of pay scale at par
with other regular staff of Municipal Corporation whereas the Petitions
filed by the employees are in respect of rejection of their prayer for grant
of permanency on account of completion of 240 days of service.
10) Mr. Nitin Kulkarni and Dr. Warunjikar have appeared on behalf
of employees in support of Writ Petitions filed by them for grant of
benefit of permanency on account of completion of 240 days of service.
The broad submissions canvassed by Mr. Kulkarni and Dr. Warunjikar are
as under:
(i) The nature of work performed by the employees is of
regular nature since the workload at the hospital is
increasing with passage of each day.
(ii) That employees were left with no choice but to accept the
engagement on the terms and conditions incorporated in
the appointment orders in absence of any bargaining power
against mighty Municipal Corporation.
(iii)That therefore the said terms and conditions cannot be
cited for defeating the lawful claim of the employees to
seek regularisation of their services.
(iv) That the Municipal Corporation has adopted resolutions for
creation of various posts of medical and paramedical staff
required at its Hospitals, Dispensaries, etc. Reliance is
placed on order dated 23 August 2013 issued by then
Municipal Commissioner by which staffing pattern was
sanctioned for YCMH in exercise of powers under Section___Page No.36 of 70___
8 August 2024::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx67(3) of Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949
(MMC Act).
(v) That total 624 posts are sanctioned as per the said staffing
pattern, which includes 166 posts of staff nurse, 11 posts of
Pharmacist, 56 posts of Ward Boys, etc. That thus the
concerned employees are working against regularly
sanctioned posts.
(vi) That each of the employee has completed more than 240
days of service in each of the calendar years and that
therefore they are entitled to be granted status of
permanent employees under Clause-4C of the Model
Standing Orders, Act. formulated under the Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
(vii) That it is erroneous to hold that various hospitals of the
Municipal Corporation are not Industrial Establishments.
(viii)That even if it is assumed that posts occupied by the
employees are not sanctioned, the Municipal Corporation
has to blame itself for such conduct and it is arbitrary on its
part to exploit services of employees for several years
without creating posts. Some of the employees have worked
for as many as 10 long years showing need for regular staff
against posts occupied by the said employees.
(ix) That the Municipal Corporation has exploited the services
of employees by paying them paltry amounts towards
honorarium, when in fact they are under legal obligation to
pay salary in regular pay scale to them.
(x) That the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab and
others V/s Jagjit Singh and Others 2 mandates payment at
the minimum of pay scale to temporary employees during
the period of their temporary services. That therefore, till
2
. 2017 (1) SCC 148.
___Page No.37 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
the employees are made permanent, they must be granted
salaries at the minimum of pay scale and once they are
made permanent in service, they must be allowed to draw
yearly increments as well.
(xi) That the Industrial Court has erred in rejecting the claim of
permanency without appreciating rendering of continuous
service by the employees for several years.
11) On above broad submission, Mr. Kulkarni and Dr. Warunjikar
have urged that the impugned orders of the Industrial Court denying the
relief of permanency be set aside while maintaining the direction for
payment of wages at the minimum of pay scale.
12) Mr. Bapat, the learned senior advocate has appeared on behalf
of the Municipal Corporation in support of the Writ Petitions filed by the
Corporation and to oppose the Writ Petitions filed by the employees. Mr.
Bapat would submit that Industrial Court has erred in granting the
prayer for wages at the minimum of pay-scales ignoring the fact that the
employees have accepted their engagements on fixed honorarium basis.
That the rights and entitlements of employees are governed by the terms
and conditions in the appointment orders and the Industrial Court has
exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding them something in excess of such
terms and conditions. That the concerned employees have filed
undertakings/bonds not to claim salaries in regular pay scale and that
appointments were offered to them only on account of filing of such
undertakings/bonds. That therefore the Industrial Court could not have
permitted the employees to take volte face and demand wages in pay
scale. He would therefore submit that the directions of the Industrial
Court for payment of wages in the minimum of pay scale suffers from
jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of
provisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
___Page No.38 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
13) So far as the Petitions filed by the employees are concerned,
Mr. Bapat would submit that engagements of the employees were for
temporary period of six months, which are extended on few occasions by
the Municipal Corporation. That their engagements are made in excess
of the staffing pattern by creating posts for temporary period after
seeking approval of the Standing Committee. That the Municipal
Commissioner is empowered to make temporary appointment under
Section 53(3) of the MNC Act whereas only State Government can
sanction posts on the establishment of a Municipal Corporation under
Section 51 of the MMC Act. That in the present case State Government
has not sanctioned posts against which temporary engagement of the
employees were made. That therefore it cannot be contended that the
employees have worked against regularly sanctioned posts. Mr. Bapat
would further submit that even if it is assumed that engagement of some
of the employees were against sanctioned posts, the same were made
only temporary for conducting walk-in interviews or some sort of written
test and the same cannot be equated with regular appointments made
following the process of selection. That therefore the employees have not
acquired any right to seek regularisation. M. Bapat would submit that
the Hospitals in which the engagement are made are not industrial
establishments within the meaning of Payment of Wages Act, 1936. That
the complaints filed by the employees proceeded on their alleged rights
under Clause 4-C of Model Standing Orders, which do not apply to the
establishments of the Municipal Corporation. He would rely upon
judgment of this Court in Sandip Baliram Sandbhor and Ors. vs. Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and Others 3 in which Talera Hospital
of the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation is held to be not an
industrial establishment. He would also rely upon judgment of this Court
in Mangal Bharat Shinde (supra) in which again it was held that Talera
3
2016(3) Mh.L.J. 562
___Page No.39 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
Hospital is not an industrial establishment. Referring to the evidence of
Smt. Manju Walmik Koli, one of the employees, Mr. Bapat would submit
that her admissions have been given about temporary nature of the
appointment. Mr. Bapat would also rely upon judgment of this Court in
Medical Superintendent, Rural Hospital and Anr. vs. Rajashree Lakshman
Yadav 4. Mr. Bapat would pray for dismissing the Petitions filed by the
employees and for allowing the Petitions filed by Municipal Corporation.
14) Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my consideration.
15) Before considering the issue of permanency demanded by the
employees, it would first be necessary to deal with the issue of payment
of wages to the employees at the minimum of pay scale, which relief is
already granted by the Industrial Court and which is the subject matter
of challenge by the Municipal Corporation in Petitions filed by it. The
employees have been engaged by the Municipal Corporation on
temporary basis on fixed honorarium and therefore, it is the contention
of Municipal Corporation that they do not have a right to claim wages
higher than the one indicated in their respective appointment orders.
16) It is first necessary to draw a distinction between workers who
are engaged through contractor and employees who are directly
employed by the Municipal Corporation but on fixed term contract basis.
The employees involved in the present petitions fall in the latter
category. They are not the workers of a contractor to whom any contract
is awarded by the Municipal Corporation. The employees are directly
engaged by the Municipal Corporation and there is a contract of
employment between them. This is also not a case where the employees
are engaged on a project for which posts are sanctioned only during
currency of that project. The case involves deployment of staff by the
4
Writ Petition No.8801 of 2003 decided on 26/06/2024.
___Page No.40 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
Municipal Corporation in its hospitals, dispensaries, etc. either because
regular posts are not filled up or extra staff is required to handle the
workload. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would not apply to
cases were workers are engaged through a contractor or where the
engagement is against the project. The issue is whether the said principle
can be ignored when two staff nurses, directed employed by Municipal
Corporation and deployed in same hospital for performing same work
can draw different wages?
17) The issue relating to payment of wages to temporary employees
employed by Governments and their instrumentalities is no more than
res integra and the law in this area is now well settled by the judgment
of the Apex Court in Jagjit Singh (supra). After considering its previous
judgments on the subject, the Apex Court held that the principle ‘ equal
pay for equal work’ needs to be made applicable when temporary
employees perform same work as that of regular employees. The Apex
Court held that employee engaged for same work cannot be paid less
than another employee, who performs same duties and responsibilities,
especially in a welfare State. The Apex Court held in paragraph 58, 60
and 61 of the judgment as under:
58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial
parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the
same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the
same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State.
Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very
foundation of human dignity. Anyone, who is compelled to work
at a lesser wage does not do so voluntarily. He does so to provide
food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self-respect and
dignity, at the cost of his self-worth, and at the cost of his
integrity. For he knows that his dependants would suffer
immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act of
paying less wages as compared to others similarly situate
constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a
domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive,
suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.
xxx
___Page No.41 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the
application of the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, in
relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad hoc
appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual
employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our
determination is, whether the employees concerned (before this
Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities as were
being discharged by regular employees holding the
same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the
application of the parameters of the principle of “equal pay for
equal work” summarised by us in para 42 above. However, insofar
as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult
for us to record the factual position. We say so, because it was
fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel representing the State
of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the present bunch
of appeals were appointed against posts which were also
available in the regular cadre/establishment. It was also accepted
that during the course of their employment, the temporary
employees from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for
any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the
temporary employees in the present set of appeals were the same
as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case
of the appellants, that the respondent employees did not possess
the qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis.
Furthermore, it is not the case of the State that any of the
temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity on any
of the principles summarised by us in para 42 hereinabove. There
can be no doubt, that the principle of “equal pay for equal work”
would be applicable to all the temporary employees concerned, so
as to vest in them the right to claim wages on a par with the
minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged government
employees holding the same post.
61. In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing
paragraph, we have no hesitation in holding that all the
temporary employees concerned, in the present bunch of cases
would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scale
(at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to
regular employees holding the same post.
18) The Industrial Court has relied upon the Apex Court judgment
in Jagjit Singh (supra) while passing the impugned judgment and order.
It has conducted factual enquiry as to whether the Complainants before
it were performing the same work as that of regular employees. After
conduct of such inquiry, the Industrial Court has arrived at a finding that
the work performed by contract employees is same as that of regular
employees, both being deployed in hospitals. Even otherwise, it would be
___Page No.42 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
imprudent to contend that staff nurses engaged on temporary basis in a
hospital would perform duties different than their counterparts engaged
on regular basis. There is no doubt to the position that all the employees
involved in the present Petitions are engaged on paramedical duties in
Hospitals and Dispensaries of the Municipal Corporation and it can
hardly be contended that there is any difference in the duties and
responsibilities performed by them in comparison to the regular
employees employed in the hospital. It is not even the case of Municipal
Corporation that there is any vast difference in duties and
responsibilities. Even otherwise, it would not be appropriate for this
Court to interfere in finding of the fact recorded by the Industrial Court
about performance of same duties and responsibilities by the employees
involved in the present Petitions as that of the regular employees of the
Municipal Corporation.
19) The law expounded by the Apex Court in Jagjit Singh (supra)
has been reiterated in subsequent judgment in Sabha Shankar Dube V/s
Divisional Forest Officer and others 5 in which it is held that in paragraph
Nos.10 and 11 as under:
“10. The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh
(supra) is whether temporary employees (daily wage employees, ad
hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual
employees and likewise) are entitled to the minimum of the regular
pay scales on account of their performing the same duties which
are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the
sanctioned posts. After considering several judgments including the
judgments of this Court in Tilak Raj (supra) and Surjit Singh
(supra) this Court held that temporary employees are entitled to
draw wages at the minimum of the pay scales which are applicable
to the regular employees holding the same post.
11. In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh (supra), we are unable
to uphold the view of the High Court that the Appellants-herein are
not entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay scales. We are not
called upon to adjudicate on the rights of the Appellants relating to
the regularization of their services. We are concerned only with the
principle laid down by this Court initially in Putti Lal (supra)5
. 2019 (12) SCC 297___Page No.43 of 70___
8 August 2024::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docxrelating to persons who are similarly situated to the Appellants and
later affirmed in Jagjit Singh (supra) that temporary employees are
entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in
service.
20) A useful reference to series of orders passed by the Delhi Court
in Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt Ltd. Vs Chief Patron/Vice
President/General Secretary, Central Warehousing Corporation Majdoor
Union,6 would also be apposite. In that case, Delhi High Court has passed
series of orders directing Central Government to implement directions in
Jagjit Singh (supra) in respect of casual labourers and contract workers
engaged by Central Government and Public Sector Undertakings. I had
an occasion to refer to the said orders passed by Delhi High Court in
Suman Forwarding Agency (supra) while authoring judgment on behalf
of Division Bench in Swabhimani Shikshak Va Shikshaketar Sanghatana
Maharashtra Rajya, Nashik vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through
Secretary, Tribal Development Department, 7 . In that judgment, this
Court held in paragraph 13, 14 and 15 as under:
13. We may also refer to Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt Ltd. Vs Chief
Patron/Vice President/General Secretary, Central Warehousing
Corporation Majdoor Union, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10318 in which
Delhi High Court has passed series of orders directing the Central
Government to implement the directions in Jagjit Singh (supra) in
respect of all casual labourers and contract workers engaged by the
Central Government and PSUs. In Order dated 16th September 2019,
the Delhi High Court has reproduced various Office Memoranda
issued by the Central Government Ministries. Since various OM are
culled out in that order, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the order
at the cost of making this judgment lengthy. The Order reads thus:
“3. Vide order dated 28th March, 2019, Central Government was
directed to file a status report on affidavit as to whether all
Government Departments/
PSUs/Corporations under the Central Government including CWC
are complying with the law declared by the Supreme Court in
Jagjit Singh, (supra). Para 25 of the order dated 28th March, 2019
is reproduced hereunder:
“25. The Central Government is directed to file the status
report on affidavit as to whether all Government
Departments/PSUs/Corporations under the Central
Government including CWC are complying with the law
6
. 2019 SCC OnLine Del10318
7
Writ Petition No.4300 of 2021 decided on 20 092022___Page No.44 of 70___
8 August 2024::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docxdeclared by the Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) by
paying the wages in terms of the directions of the Supreme
Court to the temporarily engaged employees (daily-wage
employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on
casual basis, contractual employ ees and the like). If all the
Government Departments/PSUs/Corporations are not
complying with the directions of the Supreme Court in
Jagjit Singh (supra), the Government shall forthwith issue
O.M. to all the Government Departments/
PSUs/Corporations to comply with the aforesaid directions
and place the same before this Court on the next date of
hearing.”
(Emphasis supplied)
4. On 01st August, 2019, the status report was filed by the Central
Government in which it was stated that the matter relating to
equal pay for equal work for the workmen employed by the
contractor is regulated by Rule 25(2)(v) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. Relevant portion
of the status report is reproduced hereunder:
3. It is submitted that the DoPT has vide OM dated
29.07.2019 informed that DoPT has already issued an OM
dated 07.06.1988 in respect of wages of casual labourers
engaged by Ministries/Departments which is in consonance
with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State
of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh – (2017) 1 SCC 148. Para IV of the
OM dates 07.06.1988 states as under:– “Where the nature
of work entrusted to the casual workers and regular
employees is the same, the casual workers may be paid at
the rate of 1/30th of the pay at the minimum of the
relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance for work of 8
hours a day”
A copy of the OM dated 29.07.2019 along with OM dated
07.06.1988 is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE-A.
4. With regard to the implementation of the OM dated
07.06.1988 in the PSUs/Corporations under the Central
Government, Department of Public Enterprises is required
to be approached and consulted which will require some
time.
5. The Central Government has produced OM No.
49014/1/2017-Estt.(C)pt dated 04th September, 2019
issued to all the Ministries and Departments of
Government of India reiterating OM No. 49014/2/86 Estt.
(C) dated 07th June, 1988. Relevant portion of the office
memorandum is reproduced hereunder:–
“No. 49014/1/2017-Estt.(C)Pf. Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions Department of
Personnel & Training North Block, New Delhi Dated: 4th
September, 2019
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: ‘Equal pay for Equal Work’ for Casual workers:
Compliance with earlier instructions and Hon’ble Court’s
Judgments thereon
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s___Page No.45 of 70___
8 August 2024::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docxO.M. No. 49014/2/86-Estt.(C) dated 07.06.1988 wherein
it was, inter alia, stated that:
-Where the nature of work entrusted to the casual workers
and regular employees is the same, the casual workers may
be paid at the rate of 1/30th of the pay at the minimum of
the relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance for work of
8 hours a day.
– In cases where the work done by a casual worker is
different from the work done by a regular employee, the
casual worker may be paid only the minimum wages
notified by the Ministry of Labour & Employment or the
State Government/Union Territory Administration,
whichever is higher, as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
– Persons on daily wages (casual workers) should not be
recruited for work of regular nature.
2. The above instructions have been issued keeping in view
the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is
reiterated that it is the responsibility of all
Ministries/Departments to follow the above instructions in
letter and spirit.”
(Emphasis supplied)
6. The Central Government has also placed on record OM
No. W-02/0038/2019-DPE (WC)-GL-XVIII/19 dated 13th
September, 2019 issued by Ministry of Heavy Industries &
Public Enterprises Department of Public Enterprises
directing all administrative Ministries/Departments that all
the casual workers/daily wagers employed by the Central
Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) be paid wages equivalent
to the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus dearness
allowance. Relevant portion of the office memorandum is
reproduced hereunder:–
“No. W-02/0038/2019-DPE (WC)-GL-XVIII/19 Government
of India Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises
Department of Public Enterprises ………Public Enterprises
Bhawan, Block No. 14, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New
Delhi-110003.Dated, the 13th
September, 2019 OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Equal pay for Equal work’ for Casual Workers:
Compliance with Hon’ble Courts’ Judgments thereon-reg.
On the above subject, the undersigned is directed to refer
to various instructions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and also to the DOPT’s OM dated 49014/1/2017-
Estt.(C) pt. dated 04′ September,2019.
2. The following provisions are hereby extended to casual
worker/daily wager employed by Central Public Sector
Enterprises (CPSEs):
i. Where the nature of work entrusted to the casual
workers and regular employees is the same, the casual
workers may be paid at the rate of 1/30th of the pay at the___Page No.46 of 70___
8 August 2024::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docxminimum of the relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance
for work of 8 hours a day.
ii. In cases where the work done by a casual worker is
different from the work done by a regular employee, the
casual worker may be paid only the minimum wages
notified by the Ministry of Labour & Employment or the
state Government/Union Territory Administration,
whichever is higher as per the Minimum Wage Act, 1948.
iii. Persons on daily wages (casual workers) should not be
recruited for work of regular nature.
3. All CEOs of CPSEs and administrative
Ministries/Departments are requested to ensure strict
compliance of the above provisions.”
(Emphasis supplied)
7. All the Departments of the Ministry of Central
Government as well as PSUs under the Central
Government are directed to comply with the office
memorandums dated 07th June, 1988, 04th September,
2019 and 13th September, 2019 and file the status report
with respect to the compliance thereof before the Central
Government. The compliance report shall clarify how many
casual/temporary workers were working under those PSUs
and the date from which they were given benefits. The
Central Government shall produce all the compliance
reports before this Court on the next date of hearing. The
Central Government shall circulate the copy of this order to
all the Ministries and PSUs.”
14. Thus, towards implementation of Jagjit Singh (supra), the Central
Government has already issued instructions to its Ministries and
PSUs that where the nature of work performed by causal workers is
same as that of regular employees, wages at the minimum of the
payscale are required to be paid. Thus it is now a settled law that
the employees who are not regular, irrespective of their
nomenclature such as ‘Temporary, Work Charge, Daily Wage,
Casual, Ad-hoc or Contract Basis,’ are required to be granted
minimum of pay scale at the lowest grade of regular pay scale as
extended to the regular employees holding the same post.
15. We may also make useful reference to the case of Ambulance
Drivers engaged by various Zilla Parishads through Contractors.
Such Ambulance Drivers have filed series of petitions before this
Court seeking wages at the minimum of payscale relying on the
judgment in Jagjit Singh. It is pertinent to note that the Ambulance
Drivers are engaged through contractors and not directly by Zilha
Parishads. In Dhiraj S/o. Sudhakarrao Wankhede & Ors. V. Zilla
Parishad, Chandrapur and Ors., Writ Petition No. 2247 of 2014
decided on 20.11.2019, this Court held that such Ambulance drivers
are entitled to be paid wages at the minimum of the payscale. The
decision in Dhiraj Wankhede & Ors. (supra) was followed by this
___Page No.47 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
Court in Ashok Dhondiba Meher and Ors. v. The Chief Executive
Officer, Zilla Parishad, Solapur. That judgment came to be assailed
by the Zilla Parishad, Solapur before the Apex Court in Special Leave
Petition (C) No. 8395 of 2021, The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Solapur. Vs. Ashok Dhondiba Meher and Ors. By its order
dated 23.03.2022 the Apex Court upheld the decision of this Court
relying upon the judgment in Jagjit Singh (Supra). The Apex Court
held that,
“10. In the above circumstance, it is noticed that in the present
facts the only relief granted by the High Court to the private
respondents herein is to be paid the wages at the minimum
of the pay scale at lowest grade, in the regular pay-scale
extended to the regular employees holding the same post.
The said benefit ordered to be extended is in tune with the
observations of this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra). Further, in
the instant facts what cannot be overlooked is also that the
private respondents though employed through the
contractors are discharging the onerous duties of driving the
ambulance which is operated to provide the benefit of public
health to the citizens in the PHC’s under the Zilla Parishad
which in turn is for discharging the obligation of the State.
Therefore, in such circumstances, the minimum relief that
has been granted by the High Court would not call for
interference. We at this juncture also take note of the fact
that the judgment dated 20.11.2019 passed by the
coordinate bench of the High Court in Dhiraj S. Wankhede
( supra), relied upon by the High Court in the instant case
had been assailed before this Court in a Special Leave
Petition (Civil) bearing Diary No. 12195/2020. However, the
Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed by this Court on
22.02.2021.”
Thus extension of payscale to Ambulance Drivers is upheld by the
Apex Court, even though they are not appointed by Zilha Parishads but
by contractors.
21) Considering the law expounded in various judgments, in my
view no palpable error can be traced in the direction issued by the
Industrial Court for payment of wages in the minimum of pay scale to
the employees involved in these Petitions in respect of temporary services
rendered by them.
22) The Industrial Court has however, directed payment of such
wages from the date of joining of service of such employees. In my view,
here slight modification in the direction issued by the Industrial Court
might be necessary. Some of the employees claim initial appointment
___Page No.48 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
from the years 2014 or 2015 but they filed respective complaints in the
year 2017. It would therefore be unfair for the Municipal Corporation if
such employees are held entitled for the difference in backwages from
the date of their respective appointments. It would therefore be
necessary to restrict the benefit of payment of wages at the minimum of
the pay scale from the dates of filing of complaints by each employees.
To this limited extent, the order passed by the Industrial Court warrants
modification.
23) Having dealt with issue of entitlement of the employees to
wages in the minimum of pay-scale, it would now be necessary to
consider their prayer for grant of benefit of permanency, for which
employees have filed Petitions challenging impugned orders passed by
the Industrial Court. The chart reproduced above would indicate that
some of the employees are appointed during the years 2014-2015,
whereas most of the others appear to have been engaged during the year
2020. As observed above, though Petitioner-Pramila K. Mane claims her
initial engagement as 9 September 2014, no evidence of such
engagement is produced on record and her first engagement in the
YCMH appears to have been made on 7 September 2016. In any case, it
is not necessary to delve deeper into this factual dispute about the exact
date of initial engagement of the said Petitioner. So far as the other
illustration of Vrushali Amrutkar is concerned, her first date of
engagement is 20 July 2015. However, both the said Petitioners filed
their Complaints in April-2017, when they apprehended that their
services would be discontinued by the Municipal Corporation. Therefore,
by the time, the said two Petitioners filed their respective complaints,
they had rendered hardly one or two years of services. Their further
continuance in service is attributable to the interim orders granted by the
Courts. As indicated above, initially applications filed by them for grant
of interim relief were rejected by the Industrial Court and this Court
___Page No.49 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
granted order of status-quo on 31 January 2020 with a request to the
Industrial Court to decide their complaints expeditiously. Thus, in respect
of those employees who claim sufficiently long length of service with
Municipal Corporation, their continuation of service is clearly
attributable to the interim orders and not otherwise. So far as the
majority of employees, who are appointed in the year 2020 are
concerned, their continuation in services is owing to the interim orders
passed in the present Petitions. So this is not a case where the employees
have continued in service for a long period of time by the Municipal
Corporation on its own. On the contrary, if no interim orders were to be
passed in favour of these employees, they would not have rendered more
than two to three years of service in each case. The issue is whether such
employees can be granted benefit of permanency?
24) Perusal of pleadings in the Complaints filed by the employees
would indicate that permanency was claimed essentially on the strength
of completion of 240 days of service. By now the law relating to
entitlement of an employee to secure benefit of permanency on
completion of 240 days of service under Clause- 4C of Model Standing
Orders is well settled as expounded by the Division Bench of this Court
in Municipal Council, Tirora, Vs. Tulsidas Baliram Bindhade ,8. A
reference was made to the Division Bench on account of conflicting
judgments of learned Single Judges of this Court. After considering the
entire law on the subject, this Court held in Paragraphs 19 to 21 of
Municipal Council, Tirora as under:
19. In this reference, the position emerging before us is similar. There
is no conflict between the provisions of M.S.O. 4-C and the provisions
of the S. 76 of the 1965 Act. In the event of the appointment having
been made validly, it may be possible to invoke the provisions Cl. 4C
of M.S.O. A view to the contrary would result in
regularizing/validating a void act. Cl. 4C neither permits nor
contemplates the same. As held in the above judgments, if the
8
. 2016 (6) Mh.L.J. 867___Page No.50 of 70___
8 August 2024::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docxappointment is not made in accordance with the constitutional
scheme, it is void abinitio and, therefore, there can be no claim to its
regularization or for grant of permanency in any manner. This is all
the more so as Cl. 32 of the M.S.O. clarifies that the Standing Orders
are not to operate in derogation of any other law i.e. S. 76 of 1965
Act. Definitely any interpretation of Clause 4C conducive to defeating
unwarranted. The Constitutional mandate is Violation of Clause 4C
of the MSO may tantamount to an unfair labour practice under item
9 of Sch. IV of the 1971 Act but unless & until, other additional
factors are proved on record, finding of indulgence in an unfair
labour practice under item 6 of Sch. IV thereof can not be reached.
As explained by the Hon. Apex Court in case of Maharashtra SRTC v.
Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (supra), existence
of a legal vacancy must be established & as discussed above, the
power to recruit with the employer must also be demonstrated. In
absence thereof, workman can not succeed in proving the
commission of unfair labour practice under item 6 by the employer.
These two ingredients, therefore, also must be established when
benefit of Cl. 4C is being claimed. Unless availability of a vacancy is
shown or then power with the employer to create the post and to fill
it is brought on record, mere continuation of 240 days can not and
does not enable the workman to claim permanency by taking
recourse to Cl. 4C read with item 9 of Sch. IV of 1971 Act. Clause 4C
does not employ word “regularisation” but then it is implicit in it as
no “permanency” is possible without it. Conversely, it follows that
when a statutory provision like S. 76 disables the employer either
from creating or filling in the posts, such a claim can not be
sustained. This also nullifies the reliance upon the judgment of
learned Single Judge in case of Maharashtra Lok Kamgar Sanghatana
Vs. Ballarpur Industries Limited (supra) where the employer was a
private Company not subjected to such regulatory measures by any
Statute and enjoyed full freedom to create the posts and to recruit.
One of us (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) is party to the judgment of this
Court in Raymond UCO Denim Private Ltd. Vs. Praful Warade & Ors.
(supra) which again needs to be distinguished for the same reasons.
The judgment of learned Single Judge in case of Indian Tobacco
Company Ltd. vs. The Industrial Court and Ors. (supra), judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court affirming it or then judgment of Hon’ble Apex
Court reported at Western India Match Company Ltd. and Workmen
are all considered therein & are distinguishable as the same do not
pertain to the province of public employment or consider inherent
Constitutional restraints (the suprema lex – see Mahendra L. Jain v.
Indore Development Authority and others (supra) and Cl. 32 of the
MSO. For same reasons, law laid down by the Full Bench judgment
of this Court in 2007 (1) CLR 460 2007 (1) Mah. L.J. 754 Gangadhar
Balgopal Nair Vs. Voltas Limited & Anr. does not advance the cause of
workmen. The Division Bench of this Court in May & Baker Ltd. v.
Kishore Jaikishandas Icchaporia (supra) while construing Section 10-
A(3) held that the expression “other law” would not refer to the
model standing orders or the certified standing orders since they are
laws made under the provisions of parent act itself and not under
any other law. The Model Standing Orders and Certified Standing
Orders, held the Division Bench, “are laws no doubt but they are laws
made under the provisions of the Act”. They were held not to be
___Page No.51 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
provisions under any other law. This discussion therefore shows how
these words “in derogation of any law for the time being in force” in
Cl. 32 of MSO need to be understood & does not help Adv. Jaiswal or
Adv. Khan.
20. In Vicechancellor, Lucknow University vs. Akhilesh Kumar Khare
& Anr. (supra) relied upon by Adv. Parihar, Hon. Apex Court follows
its Constitution Bench in Umadevi (III) and while rejecting relief of
regularization to the daily wagers who were engaged in public
employment without proper procedure, grants them compensation of
Rs. 4 Lakh each by way of compassion. This judgment does not
consider any welfare labour legislation and, therefore, can not
provide direct answer to the reference made. Judgment of this Court
taking similar view in the light of 1971 Act in the case of Punjabrao
Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola Vs. General Secretary, Krishi Vidyapeeth
Kamgar Union & Anr. (supra) is already considered above. The
Division Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs.
Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav (supra) finds that the respondents before
it were employed as daily wagers in the establishment of the
government milk dairy for a longer period of 12 to 20 years. There
were no sanctioned posts and vacancies in existence in the concerned
department. Respondents failed to demonstrate that their
appointments were made in accordance with the procedure
prescribed for selection. The Division Bench finds it wholly unjust to
direct the appellant State Government to grant permanency to the
respondents. It points out that the provisions of Model Standing
Orders are subject to the Rules regulating selection and appointment
so also subject to the constitutional scheme of public employment.
Respondents Daily wagers are declared to possess no legal right to
claim permanency. Order passed by the learned Single Judge to the
contrary have been quashed. State Government is held obliged to
make appointments in adherence to the constitutional scheme of
Public employment. Respondents Daily Wagers appointed without
following the prescribed procedure for selection by passing public
participation did not acquire any legal right to claim permanency. It
is apparent that no inconsistency exists and cannot be worked out in
State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav as also
Pune Municipal Corporation v. Dhananjay Prabhakar Gokhale (supra)
on one hand and Ballarpur Industries Limited Vs. Maharashtra Lok
Kamgar Sanghatana (supra) on the other hand. Status of employer,
nature of employment and inherent Constitutional limitation on
public employer or absence of such fetters on any private employer
or absolute freedom available to it to create post/s and recruit, are
some of the distinguishing features which prohibit this exercise.
21. Thus, in the light of this discussion, it follows that in absence of
vacant sanctioned posts with the Municipal Council, a workman who
has put in continuous service of 240 days or more in span of 12
months, can not invoke Clause 4C of the MSO to claim either
permanency or regularization. We accordingly answer the question
referred. Registry to place the writ petitions before the learned Single
Judge as per roaster assignment for further consideration.
___Page No.52 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
25) Thus, mere completion of 240 days of service cannot be a
factor for granting of benefit of permanency to temporary employees in
State instrumentality in absence of existence of permanent sanctioned
posts. Though Mr. Bapat has canvassed extensive submissions about
Hospitals of the Municipal Corporation being treated as industrial
establishments and applicability of Model Standing Orders, in my view
considering the judgment of this Court in Municipal Council, Tirora
(supra), it is not necessary to delve deeper into this aspect. However, a
useful reference in this regard is also required to be made to a detailed
judgment delivered by this Court in Sandip Baliram Sandbhor (supra)
dealing with Talera Hospital of the same Municipal Corporation, in
which this Court has held in paragraphs 42 and 43 as under:
42. On the issue of applicability of the Standing Orders Act, Mr. Bapat
relied upon the decisions of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the
case of Pune Municipal Corporation Vs. Keshav Ganpat Bhise and
Another,(1983) 2 BCR 715 in addition, the Apex Court in the case of
Messrs. Alloy Steel Project Vs. The Workmen,(1971) 1 SCC 536 to
contend that the phrase ‘Establishment’ would mean place of work and
merely because some part of the Corporation is covered under the
definition of Industrial Establishment, the other department cannot be
stated to be covered when it does not fulfill the conditions of being an
industrial establishment. In the case of Pune Municipal Corporation
(supra), the learned Single Judge considered the issue of subsistence
allowance payable to an employee who was working as a Mixer Driver
in Roads Division under Standing Orders Act. The learned Single Judge
noted that the Division where the employee was employed conformed
to the definition of Establishment and held that that particular Division
or Establishment in which the workmen was working was covered by
the Standing Orders Act and therefore, the employee was entitled to
relief. In the case before the Apex Court, the Apex Court held that the
phrase ‘Establishment’ is something different from a Company as
defined under the Companies Act. It observed that suppose a Company
has office premises and a workshop, which are entirely distinct, then the
Act may apply to the factory and not to the other establishment if the
criterion were not fulfilled there. In the present case, there cannot be
any dispute that there is no manufacturing activity going on in Talera
hospital. The reliance place by the Industrial Court on the decision of
the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Indraprastha
Medical Corporation vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors. 2006(110) FLR 1176
cannot be said to be misplaced.
43. Mr. Vaidya contended that the decision of the Apex Court in Alloy
Steel was given in different fact and circumstances where the Apex
Court was only considering whether the unit which had been recently___Page No.53 of 70___
8 August 2024::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docxset up was entitled to certain exemptions under the provisions of law
and the issue regarding a definition of establishment, did not arise
directly for consideration. However, Mr. Vaidya has not been able to
substantiate that, the irrespective of there being a distinct department,
which does not conform to definition of an Establishment, because the
other department conforms to the definition of Establishment, Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders), would apply to all. Nothing is shown
why the decision of the Industrial Court on this count is incorrect in law.
Mr. Vaidya however contended that there is no such factual foundation
led by the Respondents and there is a finding of fact that the Petitioners
are employees of the Municipal Corporation. No benefit can be taken
from this observation in the Judgment, when the Industrial Court has
categorically proceeded on the basis that Talera hospital is severable. If
the position of law is that there can be distinction between different
departments, then it was up to the Petitioner to show that there was no
such distinction and the Standing Orders Act applied to the hospital. In
any case, an issue that would have wider implications as far as the
Respondents are concerned need not concluded finally as the following
discussion show that even if the Standing Orders so apply, the
Petitioners are not entitled to succeed.
26) In Mangal Bharat Shinde (supra) another Judge of this Court
(S.C. Gupte, J.) has followed the decision in Sandip Baliram Sandbhor
(supra) and has held that the Industrial Establishment (Standing Orders)
Act does not apply to Talera Hospital of the Municipal Corporation.
Thus, on both the counts of non-applicability of the Standing Orders as
well as impermissibility to grant permanency under Clause- 4C of the
Model Standing Orders, in my view no case is made out by the
employees for grant of relief of permanency.
27) Mr. Kulkarni and Dr. Warunjikar have strenuously submitted
that employees are working against sanctioned posts and reliance in this
regard is placed on order dated 23 August 2013 issued by the Municipal
Commissioner with regard to sanction of staffing pattern of YCMH.
Perusal of order dated 23 August 2013 shows that the same is issued in
exercise of powers under Section 67 (3) of the MMC Act seeking to
sanction various posts on the establishment of YCMH. However, at the
end of the said order dated 23 August 2013 there is a clear caveat as
under:-
___Page No.54 of 70___
8 August 2024::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docxसद्याच्या कायरत पदांचा आढावा घेऊन संख्या निनश्चि त करण्यात आली असल्याने
नवीन पद निनर्मि ती / पदना ा ध्ये बदल करणे इ. बाबत स्वतंत्रपणे परिरपूण प्रस्ताव
प्रशासन निवभागाकडे सादर करणे आवश्यक राहील.
28) Under Section 67(3) of the MMC Act, the entire executive
power for the purpose of carrying out provisions of the Act vests in the
Municipal Commissioner and it appears that in pursuance of exercise of
that power, the Municipal Commissioner is shown to have sanctioned the
staffing pattern in respect of YCMH Hospital. However, under Sub
Section 4 of Section 51 of the MMC Act, no new posts of officers and
servants of the Corporation can be created without prior sanction of the
State Government. Section 51 reads thus:
51. Number, designations, grades, etc. of other municipal officers and
servants.
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), the Standing
Committee shall from time to time determine the number,
designations, grades, salaries, fees and allowances of auditors,
assistant auditors’, officers, clerks and servants to be
immediately subordinate to the Municipal Chief Auditor and
the Municipal Secretary respectively.
(2) The Commissioner shall, from time to time, prepare and bring
before the Standing Committee a statement setting forth the
number, designations and grades of the other officers and
servants who should in his opinion be maintained, and the
amount and nature of the salaries, fees and allowances which
he proposes should be paid to each.
(3) The Standing Committee shall, subject to the provisions of sub-
section (4), sanction such statement either as it stands or
subject to such modifications as it deems expedient.
(4) No new posts of the officers and servants of the Corporation
shall be created without the prior sanction of the State
Government:
29) Thus, if the order dated 23 August 2013 results in creation of
any new post, the Municipal Commissioner is not vested with power of
creation of posts nor Municipal Corporation, on its own, can create a
new post. Municipal Commissioner can merely authorise temporary
appointments for a period of 6 months under sub-section (3) of Section___Page No.55 of 70___
8 August 2024::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
53. However the ultimate source of power for sanctioning creation of
posts is with the State Government under Section 51(4). Section 53 of
MMC Act provides thus:
53. Power of appointment in whom to vest:
(1) The power of appointing municipal officers, whether temporary or
permanent, 2[to the posts equivalent to or higher in rank than the post of
the Assistant Municipal Commissioner] shall vest in the Corporation:
Provided that temporary appointments for loan works 3[to the posts
equivalent to or higher in rank than the post of the Assistant Municipal
Commissioner] may be made for a period of not more than six months by
the Commissioner with the previous sanction of the Standing Committee
on condition that every such appointment shall forthwith be reported by
the Commissioner to the Corporation and no such appointment shall be
renewed on the expiry of the said period of six months without the
previous sanction of the Corporation.
(2) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (1), the power of appointing
municipal officers and servants, whether temporary or permanent, under
the immediate control of the Municipal Chief Auditor and the Municipal
Secretary shall vest in the Municipal Chief Auditor or the Municipal
Secretary, as the case may be, subject, in either case, to the approval of the
Standing Committee unless the said Committee in any particular case or
class of cases dispenses with this requirement.
(3) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the power of appointing
municipal officers and servants whether permanent or temporary vests in
the Commissioner:
Provided that such power in respect of permanent appointments shall be
subject to the statement for the time being in force prepared and
sanctioned under section 51 :
Provided further that no temporary appointment shall be made by the
Commissioner for any period exceeding six months and no such
appointment carrying a salary equivlent to higher in rank than the post of
clerk shall be renewed by the Commissoner on the expiry of the said period
of six months without the previous sanction of the Standing Committee.
30) This is the reason why the Municipal Commissioner apparently
included a caveat for sending complete proposal to the administrative
department since creation of any post on the establishment of Municipal
Corporation requires previous sanction of the State Government. The
order dated 23 August 2013 cannot be read to mean that Municipal___Page No.56 of 70___
8 August 2024::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docxCommissioner has sanctioned any post in YMCH since he has no
authority to do so.
31) In fact, lack of authority on the part of local bodies to create
any post on its establishment is the reason why the larger Bench in
Municipal Council ,Tirora (supra) held that it is impermissible to grant
the benefit of permanency for temporary employee by having recourse to
provisions of Clause-4C of the Model Standing Orders.
32) In Raigad Zilla Parishad Vs. Kailash Balu Mhatre, 9 a learned
Single Judge of this Court (Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) while following the
judgment in Municipal Council, Tirora (supra) took note of the fact that
the employees therein had worked for substantial period of time and
therefore instead of rejecting their case for permanency altogether, this
Court thought it appropriate to direct sending of a proposal to the State
Government by the concerned Zilla Parishad for sanction of posts for
absorption of the employees therein. In the present case, the course of
action adopted in Raigad Zilla Parishad (supra) cannot be followed in
view of the fact that none of the employees have rendered sufficiently
long period of service (excluding the one covered on account of interim
orders passed by courts) so as to direct sending of proposals for creation
of posts.
33) The contractual employees in the present case are seeking the
relief of permanency in the services of a State instrumentality. No
discussion on the issue of regularization of temporary employees in
service can be complete without making reference to the Constitution
Bench Judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka V/s. Umadevi and
Ors.10 which marks a watershed moment in the development of law
9
. 2022 (2) Mh.L.K. 146
10
. 2006 II CLR 261-SC
___Page No.57 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
relating to regularization of services. In paragraph 43 of the judgment,
the Apex Court has held as under:
43.Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public
employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule
of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be
disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or
in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the
requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution.
Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this
Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless
the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper
competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any
right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the
appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an
engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same
would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary
employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his
term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a
temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time
beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be
absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the
strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not
made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the
relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular
recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of
employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the
very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. High
Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should
not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or
permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made
regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because,
an employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, which
we have described as ‘litigious employment’ in the earlier part of the
judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or
made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court
may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if
ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it
may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that
ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim
direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular
procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying
an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in
ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic
arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend
themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the
constitutional and statutory mandates.
34) The sound exposition of law by the Apex Court in Umadevi
now renders regularization of casual, ad-hoc, temporary or contractual
___Page No.58 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
employees impermissible even if they have rendered long years of
service. Even though a one-time exception was carved out by Apex Court
in Umadevi for regularisation of irregularly appointed employees against
sanctioned posts completing 10 years of service, the said exception
cannot be invoked in the present case considering the fact that neither
the employees have completed 10 years of service nor their services are
continued without interception by the Court. In Umadevi period of 10
years’ service is prescribed for one time exception only if the same is
without intervention by Courts/Tribunal. Para 53 of judgment in
Umadevi reads thus:
53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular
appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa
and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned
vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to
work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the
courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such
employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles
settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this
judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and
their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure,
the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or
more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or
of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are
undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up,
in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now
employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this
date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub
judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no
further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or
making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional
scheme.
(emphasis and underlining added)
35) Thus, an employee continuing in service for more than 10
years but on account of interim orders passed by the Court, would not be
entitled to even one time exception of regularisation recognised in
paragraph 53 of the judgment in Umadevi.
36) It is often contended that the Constitution Bench Judgment in
Umadevi does not circumscribe powers of an industrial adjudicator in
___Page No.59 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
granting regularization on completing 240 days of service even in State
instrumentalities. Very often reliance is placed on judgment of the Apex
Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs.
Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana 11 and Hari Nandan
Prasad V/s. Employer I/R to Management of FCI & Anr. 12 However, even
in Hari Nandan Prasad (supra), which is decided after considering the
judgment in MSRTC Vs. Casteribe it is held that the Industrial/Labour
Courts can direct regularization only if similarly placed workmen are
regularized or if there is any scheme formulated by the employer for
regularization. The Apex Court held in Hari Nandan Prasad as under:
“39. On a harmonious reading of the two judgments discussed in detail
above, we are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in
the absence of any unfair labour practice the Labour Court would not
give direction for regularisation only because a worker has continued
as daily-wage worker/ad hoc/temporary worker for number of years.
Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for
regularisation would be impermissible. In the aforesaid circumstances
giving of direction to regularise such a person, only on the basis of
number of years put in by such a worker as daily-wager, etc. may
amount to back door entry into the service which is an anathema to
Article 14 of the Constitution. Further, such a direction would not be
given when the worker concerned does not meet the eligibility
requirement of the post in question as per the recruitment rules.
However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are
regularised by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise
and the workmen in question who have approached the
Industrial/Labour Court are on a par with them, direction of
regularisation in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise, non-
regularisation of the left-over workers itself would amount to
invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the industrial
adjudicator would be achieving the equality by upholding Article 14,
rather than violating this constitutional provision.
(emphasis and underling added)
37) Thus, it is only when similarly situated workmen are
regularised or where the employer formulates a scheme for
regularization that an industrial adjudicator can direct regularisation of11
. (2009) 8 SCC 556
12
. (2014) 7 SCC 190___Page No.60 of 70___
8 August 2024::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:03 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docxtemporary employees by resorting to the principle of equality enshrined
under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the judgment in Hari
Nandan (supra) cannot be read in support of an absolute proposition
that, in every case, an industrial adjudicator can direct regularization of
employees in absence of availability of sanctioned posts only by
considering the lenth of service rendered by the employee.
38) In State of Maharashtra vs. Anita and Anr., 13 the Apex Court
has considered the issue of regularisation of Legal Advisors, Law Officers,
Law Instructors engaged in the establishment of Director General of
Police and Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai. In that case,
Government of Maharashtra had issued Government Resolution dated 21
August 2006 creating 471 posts in the cadres of Legal Advisor, Law
Officer and Law Instructor, which were required to be filled on contract
basis on payment of consolidated pay. It appears that the Petitioners in
Anita were engaged on contractual basis on the posts so created and
continued for three terms. On expiry of the third term, they were
directed to participate in fresh selection process which resulted in
automatic termination of their tenures. The employees approached
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal challenging the conditions of GR
dated 21 August 2006 and 15 September 2006 to the extent it provided
for making contractual appointments. The Tribunal partly allowed the
Original Applications holding that provision for making contractual
appointments in the said GR suffered from arbitrariness and
unreasonableness. The Tribunal however did not issue directions for
regularization of services. Both employees, as well as, State Government
challenged the decision of the Tribunal by filing Writ Petitions before this
Court. Division bench of this Court dismissed the Petitions filed by State
Government and allowed the ones filed by employees holding that 471
posts created by the State Government were permanent in nature.
13
. (2016) 8 SCC 293
___Page No.61 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:04 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
However, considering the fact that the appointments of the employees
were not made in regular manner as per constitutional scheme, this
Court refused the relief of permanency. Aggrieved by the decision of this
Court, both State Government as well as the employees approached the
Apex Court. During the pendency of the Appeals, the employees were
permitted to continue in service. In the above factual background, the
Apex Court decided the issue whether the 471 posts created vide GR
dated 21 August 2006 were permanent in nature and whether the
appointees had any right of regularisation. The Apex Court held in para
12 to 17 as under.
12. In the Government Resolution dated 21.08.2006 while creating
471 posts in various cadres including Legal Advisors, Law Officers
and Law Instructors in clause (3) of the said Resolution, it was
made clear that the posts created ought to be filled up on
contractual basis. Clause (3) reads as under:-
“The said posts instead of being filled in the regular manner
should be kept vacant and should be filled on the contract
basis as per the terms and conditions prescribed by the
government or having prepared the Recruitment Rules should
be filled as per the provisions therein.”
13. Subsequently, the said Resolution was modified by Government
Resolution dated 15.09.2006. In the said Resolution, the column
specifying “Pay Scale” was substituted with column “Combined
Permissible Monthly Pay + Telephone & Travel Expenses”. However,
there was no change in the decision of the government on filling up
the posts on contractual basis. Government Resolution dated
15.09.2006 stipulates the terms and conditions of the contractual
appointments. Clauses ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ read as under:-
“A) The appointment of the said posts would be completely on
contractual basis. These officers/employees would not be
counted as government employees.
B) The said appointments should be made on contract basis
firstly for 11 months. After 11 months the term of the
agreement could be increased from time to time if necessary.
Whereas, the appointing authority would take the precaution
while extending the terms in this manner that, at one time
this term should not be more than 11 months. The
appointment in this way could be made maximum three
times. Thereafter, if the competent authority is of the opinion
that the reappointment of such candidate is necessary then
such candidate would have to again face the selection process.
___Page No.62 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:04 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
C) The concerned appointing authority at the time of the
appointment would execute an agreement with the concerned
candidate in the prescribed format. The prescribed format of
the agreement is given in Appendix ‘B’. It would be the
responsibility of the concerned office to preserve all the
documents of the agreement.
D) Except for the combined pay and permissible telephone
and travel expenses (more than the above mentioned limit)
any other allowances would not be admissible for the
officers/employees being appointed on contract basis.”
14. The intention of the State Government to fill up the posts of
Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors on contractual
basis is manifest from the above clauses in Government Resolutions
dated 21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006. While creating 471 posts vide
Resolution dated 21.08.2006, the Government made it clear that
the posts should be filled up on contractual basis as per terms and
conditions prescribed by the Government.
As per clause ‘B’ of the Government Resolution dated
15.09.2006, the initial contractual period of appointment is
eleven months and there is a provision for extension of
contract for further eleven months. Clause ‘B’ makes it clear
that the appointment could be made maximum three times
and extension of contract beyond the third term is not
allowed. If the competent authority is of the opinion that the
reappointment of such candidates is necessary then such
candidates would again have to face the selection process.
15. It is relevant to note that the respondents at the time of
appointment have accepted an agreement in accordance with
Appendix ‘B’ attached to Government Resolution dated 15.09.2006.
The terms of the agreement specifically lay down that the
appointment is purely contractual and that the respondents will not
be entitled to claim any rights, interest and benefits whatsoever of
the permanent service in the government. We may usefully refer to
the relevant clauses in the format of the agreement which read as
under:-
“1. The First Party hereby agrees to appoint
Shri/Smt._________ (Party No. II) as a ________ on contract
basis for a period of 11 months commencing from __________
to __________ (mention date) on consolidated remuneration
of Rs.___________ (Rupees _____________ only) per month,
and said remuneration will be payable at the end of each
calendar month according to British Calendar. It is agreed
that IInd party shall not be entitled for separate T.A. and D.A.
during the contract period….
2. ……….
3. ………
4. ………..
___Page No.63 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:04 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
5. Assignment of 11 months contract is renewable for a
further two terms of 11 months (i.e. total 3 terms), subject to
the satisfaction of Competent Authority, and on its
recommendations.
6. The Party No. II will not be entitled to claim any rights,
interest, benefits whatsoever of the permanent service in the
Government.”
16. The above terms of the agreement further reiterate the stand of
the State that the appointments were purely contractual and that
the respondents shall not be entitled to claim any right or interest of
permanent service in the government. The appointments of
respondents were made initially for eleven months but were
renewed twice and after serving the maximum contractual period,
the services of the respondents came to an end and the Government
initiated a fresh process of selection. Conditions of respondents’
engagement is governed by the terms of agreement. After having
accepted contractual appointment, the respondents are estopped
from challenging the terms of their appointment. Furthermore,
respondents are not precluded from applying for the said posts
afresh subject to the satisfaction of other eligibility criteria.
17. The High Court did not keep in view the various clauses in the
Government Resolutions dated 21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006 and also
the terms of the agreement entered into by the respondents with the
government. Creation of posts was only for administrative purposes
for sanction of the amount towards expenditure incurred but merely
because the posts were created, they cannot be held to be
permanent in nature. When the government has taken a policy
decision to fill up 471 posts of Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law
Instructors on contractual basis, the tribunal and the High Court
ought not to have interfered with the policy decision to hold that
the appointments are permanent in nature.
39) Thus, in Anita the Apex Court held that mere sanctioning of
posts does not mean that the posts automatically become permanently
sanctioned posts. The Apex Court further held that having accepted
contractual appointments, the employees therein were estopped from
challenging the terms of their appointment. The judgment in Anita
would squarely apply to the facts of the present case.
40) In Medical Superintendent, Rural Hospital (supra) this Court
has dealt with cases of temporary employees engaged in various State
Government hospitals, who had sought the relief of permanency. The
employees therein were engaged for a short period of time mostly
___Page No.64 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:04 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
against leave vacancies. However, on account of interim orders passed by
the Industrial Court, the said employees continued in services for a long
period of time. In that case, the employees relied upon rendering of
services against sanctioned vacant posts. However, this Court refused to
grant the relief of permanency to those employees even though they had
rendered 23/24 years of service on account of interim and final orders
passed by the Industrial Court and interim order passed by this Court.
This Court also considered recent judgment of the Apex Court in Vinod
Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India and Ors. 14 and held in paragraph
29 to 33 as under:-
29) Respondents were engaged initially for a period of 3 months by
giving them breaks after each spell of 29 days. They had rendered
hardly one or two years of service when the filed complaints before the
Industrial Court. No right got created in their favour to seek the benefit
of permanency when their complaints were decided by the Industrial
Court. In my view, therefore the relief of permanency granted to the
Respondents by the Industrial Court of completion of 240 days of
service is wholly unsustainable.
30) Mr. Pakale has relied on judgment of this Court in Chief Officer,
Alibaug Municipal Council (supra). However the facts in the said case
were entirely different. The Respondents therein were initially engaged
as Badli Safai Kamgars and upon sanction of 13 posts in 1997,
Standing Committee of the Municipal Council adopted a resolution for
their regularisation and a proposal to that effect was sent to the State
Government, which was rejected. Their services were terminated by
withdrawing pay scales and they were reinstated as daily wage
workers. The Industrial Court allowed their complaints on the ground
of completion of 240 days of service under MSO 4C. This Court held
that regularisation as per clause 4C of MSO was impermissible but did
not disturb the relief of regularisation as Respondents therein complied
with one time exception in para 53 of Umadevi as the appointment
was held to be against sanctioned posts and completion of 10 years of
service (without Court intervention) as on the judgment in Umadevi.
The judgment in Chief Officer, Alibaug Municipal Council is thus
clearly distinguishable as initial engagements of Respondents were not
against sanctioned posts, they did not complete 10 years of service
without Court’s intervention and their initial appointments were made
only to meet temporary exigencies of service such as regular
incumbent’s deputation on training, leave, absence, etc. Therefore
Respondents are not entitled to the benefit of one time exception in
para-53 of the judgment in Umadevi.
14
. SLP © 2241-42 of 2016 decided on 30 January 2024
___Page No.65 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:04 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
31) Before parting, a quick reference to the recent judgment of the
Apex Court in Vinod Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors . would be
necessary. The Apex Court had an occasion to once again visit the issue
of regularisation of service of government employees. The Apex Court
has dealt with case of Accounts Clerks in the office of Divisional
Regional Manager, who were appointed to ex-cadre posts after
conducting selection process involving written test and viva voce
interviews in pursuance of Notification dated 21 February 1991. After
putting in considerable period of service, the Appellants approached
Central Administrative Tribunal. Their original applications were
dismissed by the Tribunal holding that their appointments were
temporary and for specific scheme. After their Writ Petitions were
dismissed by the High Court, the Appellants approached the Supreme
Court. The Apex Court, after referring to its decision in Umadevi has
held in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 as under:
“5. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court
believes that the essence of employment and the rights
thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of
appointment when the actual course of employment has
evolved significantly over time. The continuous service of the
appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing
duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and
their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular
recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the
temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial
engagement. Moreover, the appellants’ promotion process
was conducted and overseen by a Departmental Promotional
Committee and their sustained service for more than 25
years without any indication of the temporary nature of their
roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary
engagement being specified, merits a reconsideration of their
employment status.
6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by
the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand,
given the specific circumstances under which the appellants
were employed and have continued their service. The
reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be
used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued
over a considerable period through continuous service. Their
promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies
and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process
involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes
their case from the appointments through back door entry as
discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).
7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also
distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments
underscoring the importance of considering certain
appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance
with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to
have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures___Page No.66 of 70___
8 August 2024::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:04 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docxof regular appointments such as conduct of written
examinations or interviews as in the present case. Paragraph
53 of the Uma Devi (supra) case is reproduced hereunder:
—
—
8. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds
merit in the appellants’ arguments and holds that their
service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a
reclassification from temporary to regular status. The
failure to recognize the substantive nature of their roles and
their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs
counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent
behind employment regulations.
9. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the
High Court is set aside, and the appellants are entitled to be
considered for regularization in their respective posts. The
respondents are directed to complete the process of
regularization within 3 months from the date of service of
this judgment.”
32) I am afraid the judgment in Vinod Kumar again does not assist the
case of Respondents. In Vinod Kumar, the appointments were made
after conducting selection process involving written test and viva voce
interviews in pursuance of a Notification. In the present case,
Respondents are back door entrants who are engaged without
conducting any selection process.
33) Mr. Pakale has contended that by now it has been 23-24 years that
Respondents continue to be in service and that they deserve to be
regularised in service at least at some point of time if not from the date
of completion of 240 days’ of service. As observed above, Respondents
do not satisfy the criteria of one-time exception in para 53 of judgment
in Umadevi. Their continuation in service is owing to the interim and
final orders passed by the Industrial Court. Since impugned Order of
the Industrial Court is found to be erroneous, their continuation in
service is actually void. They have earned salaries for continuation in
service all these years and now it is not possible to recover the same.
However, to expect regularisation of their appointments on the
strength of erroneous continuation in service is like adding premium to
the illegality. Public exchequer is already bled by making two persons
works against one post. Regularising services of Respondents would
put additional burden on the public exchequer. In my view therefore,
mere continuation in service during pendency of litigation would not
be a fit ground to grant them regularisation.
(emphasis added)
41) Thus, no right is created in contractual or temporary employees
to claim regularization/permanency merely on the strength of few years
___Page No.67 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:04 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
of casual/contractual service. PCMC being an instrumentality of State is
under obligation to fill up vacant sanctioned post by conducting regular
selection. Contractual appointees having secured temporary
engagements for 6 months by participating in selections held for
effecting such contractual engagements cannot brand themselves to be
irregularly appointed employees on vacant sanctioned posts. By their
very nature, the initial engagements of the employees covered by these
petitions were for fixed period. No right is acquired on the strength of
such engagements to remain in services of the Municipal Corporation. I
am therefore of the view that the employees covered by these petitions
cannot be granted permanency in service. With a view to avoid creation
of any further hopes in their minds, the interim protection granted in
their favaour must also come to an end.
42) After considering overall conspectus of the case, no case is
made out by the employees for grant of relief of permanency and the
Industrial Court has rightly refused the same. No interference in the
orders of the Industrial Court, to the extent of denial of relief of
permanency, is therefore warranted.
43) In my view therefore, all the Writ Petitions, filed by the
employees deserve to be dismissed. Though relief of payment of wages at
the minimum of pay-scale granted by the Industrial Court warrants no
interference, slight modification with regard to the date from which said
benefit is to be granted is necessary.
44) I accordingly proceed to pass following order:
(i) It is held that employees involved in the Petitions are not
entitled to the relief of permanency in service and the orders___Page No.68 of 70___
8 August 2024::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:04 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docxpassed by the Industrial Court refusing permanency to the
employees do not warrant any interference.
(ii) The employees covered in the Petitions are entitled to be paid
wages in the minimum of pay-scale applicable to regular
employees holding similar posts w.e.f. the date of filing of
Complaints by each one of them. To this limited extent of the
date from which this benefit is to be granted, the orders passed
by the Industrial Court shall stand modified.
(iii) The Municipal Corporation shall pay to all employees covered
by these petitions difference in the wages arising out of grant
of benefit of wages in minimum of pay scale within a period of
three months.
(iv) Interim orders granted in the Petitions shall stand vacated.
45) With the above directions all the Petitions stand disposed of.
46) Interim applications stand disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
47) After the judgment is pronounced, the learned counsel
appearing for the employees pray for continuation of interim order that
was operating during pendecncy of the Petitions. The request is opposed
by the learned counsel appearing for Municipal Corporation.
___Page No.69 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 07:49:04 :::
Megha group matter_fc.docx
48) Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
interim order shall operate for a period of four weeks from today.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
___Page No.70 of 70___
8 August 2024
::: Uploaded on – 23/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 07:49:04 :::