The Chief Officer, Nagar Parishad, Yavatmal vs Sharad Madhavrao Bodade

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

The present petition challenges the judgment dated 10.08.2023 passed by the Industrial Court, Yavatmal.

Facts as can be seen from the petition are as under:

That the respondent was engaged as a daily wager in the Fire Department of the petitioner Nagar Parishad on 28.03.1988, and thereafter as a peon on 20.11.1991. The Standing Committee of the petitioner resolved that the appointment of respondent should be in the pay scale of Rs.750-940 by passing a resolution on 23.05.1994. In a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 2963/1991, this Court, vide order dated 12.01.2005, allowed the petition and directed regularization of respondent as Class-IV employee from his joining of service without any back wages. The petitioner, having attained the age of superannuation, retired from service on 31.12.2010. Thereafter, on 14.07.2015, he chose to file a complaint bearing Complaint ULP No. 107 of 2015 for pensionary and other benefits under Section 28 read with Item 5 and 9 of Schedule-IV of the M.R.T.U. & PU.L.P. Act, 1971. The said complaint is allowed by the impugned judgment.

I have heard Shri S.S. Bhalerao, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri C.R. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for respondent sole.

I have also gone through the judgment of the Industrial Court impugned in the petition. The said judgment takes into

consideration the fact that this Court in the earlier writ petition has specifically mentioned that the respondent herein is entitled to get the salary and other benefits admissible as a regular peon from the date on which he actually joined the service. It has also recorded a finding that since the respondent joined the service on 28.03.1988, the length of the said service needs to be considered from that date and not from the date of regularization. Thus, the Industrial Court has proceeded to allow the complaint.

Even though the learned Counsel for the petitioner had tried to make out a case that the order suffers from perversity, the controversy stands resolved in view of judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3566 of 2024, in which the Division Bench of this Court, drawing support from Rule 57 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, held that Note 1 of the said rule would come into effect in such contingencies, since the employee concerned, i.e. the respondent herein, was subsequently brought on a regular establishment. It therefore went on to allow the petition. The said judgment and the ratio laid therein squarely applies in the present matter. The Industrial Court has given justifiable reasons for allowing the complaint, taking aid of the order of this Court passed in earlier round of litigation, and has held that the complainant, i.e. the present respondent, is entitled for benefits. I find no perversity in the judgment of the Industrial Court. The petition is without merit and is liable to be rejected.

The Writ Petition is rejected. Rule discharged.