SACHIN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had filed Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad claiming permanency and salary from the year 2006. The Original Application is dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition.

(2.) Mr. Tambe, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the petitioner is appointed as driver in respondent no.2 to 4 department in the year 2006 on clear and vacant post. The petitioner possesses the necessary qualification. The petitioner worked with respondent as a driver from the year 2006 till October 2018. The respondents have not paid due salary and wages to the petitioner, so also other benefits. The respondents also did not issue the permanency order. The petitioner since the year 2006 was driving vehicle bearing No. MH-16-N-172. The log book clearly depicts the name of the petitioner as a driver. On 22.12.2008, respondent no.2 forwarded letter to respondent no.3 for issuing appointment order to the petitioner. The respondent no.3 in turn forwarded the said letter to the higher authority on 06.01.2011. No further orders are issued. The respondents have also issued experience certificate to the petitioner. Time to time letters are issued by the Inspector, State Excise Department, Ahmednagar to substantiate that the petitioner is consistently working as driver with the Department. The learned counsel submits that only on the ground that the appointment order is not issued, the case of the petitioner is not considered. On 06.07.2014, respondent no.2 issued letter to P.W.D., Solapur. The said letter clarifies that the petitioner alongwith other constable is in duty of Crime Branch. The petitioner is not paid the salary as applicable to the post of driver. The petitioner is also entitled to be issued with the permanency order. The respondents have extracted work from the petitioner for more than 12 years. The learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Sheo Narain Nagar and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in 2018 AIR (SC) 233 and submits that an action of keeping an employee on paltry system is unfair.

(3.) The learned A.G.P. contends that the petitioner was never issued with appointment order. No selection process is followed. The petitioner as and when required by the Department was called for outstation duty. It is not the case of regular employment, only when the department had to go outstation the services of the petitioner were solicited and he was paid from time to time. The selection process was conducted in the year 2012 for the post of driver by the respondent- Department. The petitioner participated in the selection process. The petitioner secured less marks and he was not selected. The petitioner is not entitled for regularization. The Tribunal has rightly considered the said aspects.