WASUDEO PRALHAD PHOPSE Vs. INDUSTRIAL COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Advocate Gordey for petitioner and A.G.P. for respondent no.1 to 3.

(2.) Learned A.G.P. on the other hand states that grievance before the Industrial Court was only about sending juniors to training and relevance of age of petitioner was not at all a dispute raised before Industrial Court. He further states that juniors of petitioner were forwarded in 1994, because they were within prescribed age limit. He further states that Industrial Court has found that government resolution date d9.2.1988 was applicable to the bonded candidates who had already undergone MPW Training and petitioner had not undergone such training, hence he was not eligible for the benefit.

(3.) With the assistance of both the learned counsel, I have perused the records of writ petition. Petitioner was admittedly more than 30 years of age when the circular dated 30.1.1992 came to be issued. It further appears that juniors mentioned by him were less than 30 years in 1994. However, then question as posed by Advocate Gordey is whether her such grant of permanency or regularization, the age of candidate already in government service has got any relevance. Though the issue is not raised in ULP complaint, in writ petition, the same is sought to be raised, though not in so many words. However, as the question is a question of law, I find that in writ petition same can be allowed to be raised . But then question is what was the reason for government to prescribe such age limit in its circular at Exhibit 32.