PALLAVI KHALE Vs. BRIHANMUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this petition is whether, 'the appointment of the 'three Petitioners as Assistant Law Officer (Grade-II) can be treated as provisional merely on account of pendency of special leave petition before the Hon 'ble Supreme Court? ' and whether, 'they are entitled to be considered for the promotion to the post of Assistant Law Officer? '. Petitioners contend that they have been regularly appointed on the post of Assistant Law officer (Grade II) and have rendered unblemished service for seven years. It is contended that since appointments are permanent, they are entitled to be considered for the promotion to the higher post of Assistant Law Officer. However, they are not considered for promotion on the basis of the clause in their appointment letters to the effect that 'their appointment is subject to the decision given by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 8394 of 2013 ". According to them, this clause is unjustified and MCGM is unjustified in relying upon this clause for treating the appointment as 'provisional ' or 'temporary ' and that such approach is against settled principles of service jurisprudence.

(2.) Whereas, the Corporation contends that Petitioner 's appointments to the post of Assistant Law Officer (Grade-II) are temporary and subject to outcome of the decision in Special Leave Petition.

(3.) Their contention is even this clause is inserted in their respective appointment orders and Petitioners have even given an undertaking that they will not claim any equities, once appointed, they will abide to the decision given by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the said Special Leave Petition.