LAXMAN SHEKOJI GAJBHARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS in both these Petitions are the same persons and a common relief for regularisation of service in Class-IV Labour grade-I from the year 1983 has been prayed for with consequential benefits and hence we are deciding both these petitions by a common judgment.

(2.) PETITIONERS contend that all of them came to be appointed sometimes in june/july, 1983 as daily wagers at Dhanegaon Nursery Centre under the District horticulture Nursery Officer who is part of the department of Horticulture, government of Maharashtra. Initially they were paid Rs. 7/- per day as daily wages which amount was increased to Rs. 20/- per day from 1st May, 1988. They claimed that they have been employed continuously without any break and though they were employed on daily wages, they were being paid on monthly basis. They were illegally denied the benefit of permanency though the work, they were engaged in, was available without any interruption and continuously all along. The Petitioners have relied upon directions given by this Court in Writ petition No. 2359 and 2360 of 1987 in respect of similarly placed wagers at dhamapur Nursery Centre in Sindhudurg District. Consequent to the said directions the Government of Maharashtra had issued a Government Resolution dated 10th January, 1990 and absorbed the daily wage petitioners from Dhamapur nursery Centre on regular establishment. Similar benefits ought to have been given to the Petitioners as well by implementing the directions in Writ Petition no. 2359 and 2360 of 1987. However, as the State Government did not take any steps for regularisation of their services on permanent establishment they approached this Court.

(3.) IN Writ Petition No. 427 of 1990 while granting rule interim relief was not considered by this Court. Subsequently Writ Petition No. 983 of 1992 was moved by the very same petitioners for directions that the Petitioners are entitled for the benefit of public holidays and not to discontinue them from service by giving an artificial break in every week. By order dated 15th May, 1992 this Court restrained the Respondents from discontinuing the services of the Petitioners by giving one day's break in a week and directed to give the benefit of public holidays, including second and fourth Saturdays and Sundays in each month, with full wages. However, while admitting the petition, by order dated 9th July, 1992 the interim order passed on 15th May, 1992 came to be vacated.