BABANRAO PARBATRAO CHAVAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are presently working as assistant Engineers (Grade-II) in the employment of Zilla Parishad, aurangabad. The petitioners from serial nos. 1 to 4 came to be initially appointed by the orders of appointments dated 17-11-1980, 8-10-1984, 23-1-1986 and 27-1-1986, respectively, in the post of Junior Engineers. The petitioners were appointed on clear, vacant and sanctioned posts in the prescribed pay scale. The petitioners continued in the employment of the Zilla parishad, Aurangabad, and were in due course of time, granted confirmation. After completion of 5 years service, in the post of Junior Engineer, all the petitioners were upgraded to the post of Sectional Engineer, while being in the employment, the petitioners improved their qualifications by acquiring a degree of Bachelor of Engineering (Civil ). In the year 2000, the petitioners were eligible and qualified to be absorbed in the post of Assistant Engineer (Grade-m), and were accordingly granted the said higher grade post. It is relevant to note that higher grade post for candidates possessing the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering is Assistant Engineer (Grade-II)whereas for under Graduates i. e. Diploma holders, the higher grade post is Sectional Engineer. The petitioners' names also figure in the seniority list prepared as on 1/01/2001 (Part I) which is final seniority list of assistant Engineers (Grade-II) maintained at the State level and the petitioners' names appear at serial nos. 110, 130, 140 and 141, respectively.

(2.) AS against the said service record of petitioners, the respondent no. s, 4 and 5 were appointed as Junior Engineers on ad hoc basis temporarily under 'jawahar Rojgar. Yojana'. that too, having regard to the short broken period of service rendered by them under the Zilla Parishad prior in point of time. 'jawahar Rojgar Yojana' was a scheme floated by the central Government and the Government of Maharashtra was to implement the said scheme through the Zilla Parishads and Village Panchayats. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 had worked in Zilla Parishad for few months temporarily in the year 1987 and thereafter were discontinued.

(3.) ON 11-12-1989, the Government by issuing a Resolution took a decision, where under the Zilla Parishads were directed to grant employment to the respondents no. 4 and 5 a,nd other similarly situated employees under 'jawahar Rojgar Yojana', who had at some point of time, worked temporarily with the Zilla Parishads. The respondent nos. 4 and 5 along with other similarly situated employees, came to be appointed on 2 3/02/1990 by the respondent / Zilla Parishad and the appointment order clearly mentions the temporary nature of the appointments being for a period of 6 months, under the 'jawahar Rojgar Yojana'. The appointment was to come to an end by 10/06/1990. The posts of "junior Engineers' under the Government Resolution dated llth December 1989 were created for temporary period of 6 months. As the petitioners were apprehending termination of their services by 10/06/1990 i. e, on expiry of the period of appointment, the respondent nos. 4 and 5, and others filed writ petitions in the High Court bearing nos. 1481/1990 and 1474/ 1990 and this Court by its order dated 8/06/1990, passed an interim order and restrained the Zilla Parishad from terminating services of the petitioners (in the said petitions), so also, issued Rule. Under the interim order, the petitioners (in the said petitions) continued in service till the time the State Government took a decision to regularize their services. The State Government, after calling for information in regard to all the candidates, who were irregularly appointed in breach of the rules of recruitment in various departments of the State Government, so also, under the Zilla Parishads, identified that there were in all 3,761 temporary employees working in different departments of the State Government and out of them 1,672 were under the Zilla Parishads. The State government, on the basis of the data collected by it, in regard to irregu-' lar appointments made without following the recruitment rules, took a policy decision on 8/03/1999 and decided to regularize their services. The said decision further reveals that the irregular appointments made in defiance of the prescribed mode of recruitment, were to be regularized by giving one time concession. The said decision was followed by another Government Resolution dated 29/04/1999, which deals exclusively with the temporary appointees under the Zilla Parishads. Under the Government Resolution dated 8/03/1999, it was decided to grant the seniority to the regularized employees from the date of issuance of the Government Resolution viz, 8/03/1999, The Government Resolution dated 29/04/1999 provided that the seniority would be granted from 29/04/1999 and, as such, this discrepancy came to be rectified by issuing a corrigendum, making it clear that all the candidates whose services were regularized would be entitled to have their seniority counted from 8/03/1999. When the Writ Petition Nos. 1481/1990 and 1474/1990 came up for hearing, the attention of the Court was drawn to the Government Resolution which regularized the services of the petitioners therein and, as such, the Court disposed of the petitions, leaving the question of seniority and consequential benefits to be adjudicated upon by the State Government, as the same was pending consideration with the Government. While disposing of the writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court has drawn attention of the State Government to the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration and others, AIR 1992 SC 789 and more particularly, the observations made in paras 13 to 15. The said judgment was referred to indicate the temporary nature of the appointments under the 'jawahar Rojgar yojana. Under the said Yojana, it was never intended to provide permanent / regular employment to a handful of persons and as such, the said appointments were temporary and ad hoc in nature, which did not confer any right of regularizatian on the appointees.