//
you're reading...
legal issues

Service matter – Regularization of Unpaid revenue clerks – candidates who were engaged to work on payment of fees were popularly known as “unpaid candidates’- kept in the waiting list, were called upon to work on payment of nominal fees under the control of different departments like revenue Department, Settlement Commissioner, Land Records Department, city survey office, etc. -The Tribunal by its judgment dated 20th December, 1992 allowed the application directing the respondents to absorb unpaid candidates, who had put in more than ten years of service as such, by giving preference and by relaxation of age, if they otherwise fulfill other eligibility criteria. – challenged in appeal – Meanwhile, services of certain unpaid candidates were terminated by the respondents. The appellant’s service was also terminated by order dated 20th April, 1998.- Appeal allowed – set aside their respective orders of termination with direction to the respondents to take action for regularisation of services of all the applicants including the appellant herein in accordance with GR dated 10th March, 2005. It was directed to pass appropriate orders within three months – Division Bench set aside the orders – Apex court held that The respondents are directed to comply with the order and directions passed by the Tribunal on 24th November, 2011 in OA No. 293/1998 and regularize the services of the appellant with retrospective effect within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid direction and observation. No costs.= SANDHYA … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41720

Service matter – Regularization of Unpaid revenue clerks – candidates who  were

engaged to  work  on  payment  of  fees  were  popularly  known  as  “unpaid candidates’- kept in the waiting  list,   were called upon to work on  payment  of  nominal  fees   under  the  control  of

different departments  like  revenue  Department,  Settlement  Commissioner,

Land Records Department, city survey office, etc. –The Tribunal by its judgment dated 20th  December,  1992  allowed the application directing  the respondents to absorb unpaid candidates,  who had put in more than ten years of service as such, by giving preference  and

by relaxation of age, if they otherwise fulfill other eligibility criteria. – challenged in appeal – Meanwhile, services of certain unpaid candidates  were  terminated  by the respondents.  The appellant’s  service  was  also  terminated  by  order dated 20th April, 1998.- Appeal allowed – set  aside their respective orders of termination with direction to the respondents  to take action for regularisation of services  of all the applicants  including the appellant herein in accordance with GR dated 10th March,  2005.  It  was directed to pass appropriate orders within three months – Division Bench set aside the orders – Apex court held that The respondents are directed to comply  with the order and directions passed by the Tribunal on 24th  November,  2011  in OA  No.  293/1998  and  regularize  the  services  of  the  appellant   with retrospective effect within two months from the date of receipt of  copy  of this judgment. The appeal  is  allowed  with  the  aforesaid  direction  and observation. No costs.=

The Government of Maharashtra vide GR dated  30th  June,  1961  framed

recruitment  rules  of  revenue   clerks   from   amongst   persons   having

qualification S.S.C. and within the age limit of 23  years  (relaxable  upto

26 years for reserved category candidates). Selected candidates were  to  be

appointed in their office to work against clerical post.   Those  who  could

not be adjusted against the post  but were kept in the waiting  list,   were

called upon to work on  payment  of  nominal  fees   under  the  control  of

different departments  like  revenue  Department,  Settlement  Commissioner,

Land Records Department, city survey office, etc. Those candidates who  were

engaged to  work  on  payment  of  fees  were  popularly  known  as  “unpaid

candidates’.

Their  payments  are  being  made  out  of  copying  fees  received  by  the

department, 70% of which was  for  payment  of  wages  to  the  said  unpaid

candidates and 30% share was credited to the Government.

4.    The applications were called for appointment to  Clerical  posts.  The

appellant and others were  declared  successful.   Those  whose  names  were

appearing in the main selection list were  appointed  against  the  Clerical

post. Rest in the waiting list were allowed to work  as  unpaid  candidates.

Since 4th July, 1985, the appellant is working as unpaid  candidate  in  the

City Survey Office at Dhule, Maharasthra.=

The Secretary of Bhumi Abhilekh Bina Vetan Sangthana (Union of  Unpaid

Candidates  belonging  to  Land  Records  Department)  filed   an   Original

Application No.153 of 1991 before the Maharashtra  Administrative  Tribunal,

Mumbai.   They  prayed  for  direction  on  the  respondents   for   regular

absorption of  its  members  i.e.  unpaid  candidates  against  the  regular

vacancies. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 20th  December,  1992  allowed

the application directing  the respondents to absorb unpaid candidates,  who

had put in more than ten years of service as such, by giving preference  and

by relaxation of age, if they otherwise fulfill other eligibility criteria.=

 The aforesaid judgment was challenged by those unpaid candidates,  who

were appointed on and after 13th  February,  1987,  in  view  of  denial  of

relief given by the Division Bench of the  Bombay  High  Court.   The  Civil

Appeals preferred by those unpaid candidates were allowed  by  this  Court’s

order dated 11th August, 2011 directing the respondents to take  action  for

regularization of services of the appellants in  accordance  with  GR  dated

10th March, 2005.

11.   Meanwhile, services of certain unpaid candidates  were  terminated  by

the respondents.  The appellant’s  service  was  also  terminated  by  order

dated 20th April, 1998.

12.   The  appellant  and  others  challenged  their  respective  orders  of

termination before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench  at

Aurangabad and prayed for directions on respondents  for  regularisation  of

their services.

13.   After hearing the parties,  the Tribunal by its common judgment  dated

24th November, 2011 passed in Original Application No.202/1998 (Smt.  Rajani

vs.  Government  of  Maharashtra  etc.),  including   Original   Application

No.293/1998 preferred by the appellant, allowed the applications, set  aside

their respective orders of termination with direction to the respondents  to

take action for regularisation of services  of all the applicants  including

the appellant herein in accordance with GR dated 10th March,  2005.  It  was

directed to pass appropriate orders within three months.=

The order of termination dated 20th April, 1998 was set aside by  the

Tribunal by its order dated 24th November, 2011.  The Tribunal directed  the

respondents to consider the case of appellant for  regularization  in  terms

of Government Resolution dated 10th March, 2005.  The order  of  termination

being set aside, in the eye of law the  appellant  shall  be  deemed  to  be

continued in service even on 10th March,   2005   i.e.  the  date  when  the

Government Resolution was issued.  Such  being  the  position  of  law,  the

appellant is entitled  for  regularization.  But  the  High  Court  was  not

correct in  holding that the appellant was not in  service  on  10th  March,

2005  and wrongly rejected her claim for regularization.

19.   For the reason aforesaid, the impugned judgment  passed  by  the  High

Court cannot be upheld. The impugned judgment dated 15th March, 2013  passed

by the High Court is set aside. The respondents are directed to comply  with

the order and directions passed by the Tribunal on 24th  November,  2011  in

OA  No.  293/1998  and  regularize  the  services  of  the  appellant   with

retrospective effect within two months from the date of receipt of  copy  of

this judgment. The appeal  is  allowed  with  the  aforesaid  direction  and

observation. No costs.

2014 – July. part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41720

for full text – go  for LAW FOR ALL

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,935,602 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,873 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com