THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, TIRORA Vs. TULSIDAS BALIRAM BINDHADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Hon'ble The Chief Justice has in view of the following orders dated 22.01.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 5191/2004, 5199 to 5205/2004, 5207 & 5520 of 2004, referred to this Division Bench the following question :

(2.) We find that the controversy already answered by at least two Division Benches of this Court in 2006 & in 2008 in 2 LPAs and by at least two learned Single Judges S/Shri S. J. Vazifdar J. & B.P. Dharmadhikari J, after appreciating the binding precedents of the Hon'ble Apex Court. We have therefore rejected the request of Adv. M.P. Jaiswal to place the reference before Full Bench. Judgments of the Division Benches of this Court in LPA 37 of 2006 in case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Dhananjay Prabhakar Gokhale, 2006 4 MhLJ 66 ( RMS Khandeparkar J. & Roshan Dalvi J.) & in LPA 14 OF 2008 dated 3172008 State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs. Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav, 2008 5 AllMR 497 (Swatanter Kumar, C.J., A.P. Deshpande, J.) as also of Single Judge (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) in Ramesh Vitthal Patil & Ors. Vs. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation & Ors., 2010 6 BCR 661 and another judgment of a Single Judge (One of us B.P. Dharmadhikari J.) Shrirampur Municipal Council Vs. V.K. Barde, Member, Industrial Tribunal & Ors., 2011 4 MhLJ 875 are helpful here. In fact, the respective learned Single Judges whose concurring orders lead to this reference have also taken note of this legal position. Though Shri Jaiswal made request to place the matter before the Full Bench, he did not invite our attention to any contrary view of the Division Bench in the matter of public employment reached after considering the binding precedents. The third learned Single Judge to whom these two concurring views have been pointed out, noted the difference in facts presented to him and therefore, arrived at a different conclusion. As a question of law not requiring factual investigation is before us, respective Counsel have avoided to comment on merits of any of these orders and we also do not find it necessary to delve into it.

(3.) Before proceeding further, it will be proper to reproduce the relevant legal provisions here: