HEMLATA JAYANT NEVE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition is filed with the following prayers:

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, though the petitioner is working with respondent no.2 since the year 2002 on permanent vacant post, the petitioner is not appointed on regular basis. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invites our attention to the appointment letter of the petitioner and submits that, since the petitioner has served since the Year 2002, the petitioner's services ought to have been regularized thereby issuing appointment letter. It is submitted that, though respondent nos.3 and 4 are not qualified, they have been appointed subsequently. Their services have been continued, and service benefits are extended to them, however, the said benefits are refused to the petitioner. It is submitted that, since the petitioner is working as a Medical Officer, she is entitled for the equal pay scale of Rs.9,300/- to 34,800/-, which is being given to the other two Medical Officers i.e. respondent nos.3 and 4. It is submitted that, there is clear cut violation of Article 39 (a) r/w. 21 of the Constitution of India, and the petitioner has been denied the service benefits. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pressed into service exposition of law by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors.1.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 relying upon the affidavit- in-reply and additional affidavit-in-reply submits that, there is no work available to the Ayurvedic Doctors in Municipal Corporation Jalgaon. There are no patients requiring Ayurvedic treatment. Therefore, two dispensaries namely Pandit Dindayal Ayurvedic Dispensary and Shahir Amar Shaikh Ayurvedic Dispensary were required to be closed down, and therefore, the petitioner namely Dr.Hemlata Neve, respondent No.3 namely Dr.Neha Bharambe and respondent no.4 namely Dr.Vinod Patil are working in Allopathic Dispensary as Assistants. There is one more Ayurvedic Dispensary run by the Municipal Corporation Jalgaon namely Mohammad Yusuf 1 AIR 2016 SC 5176 Ayurvedic Dispensary. Even there also hardly two or three patients visit the dispensary. It is further submitted that, it appears from the record that, the appointment orders were issued without advertisement, and therefore, the appointments cannot be regularized. In this reference, the Government Resolutions / Directions dated 25.08.2005, 16.11.2006 and 27.02.2008 clearly state that these candidates are to be treated as back door entry and they should be removed from their posts. It is further submitted that, as far as the present petitioner is concerned, she was appointed on 01.11.1999 and her services came to an end on 24.06.2002. Thereafter, she was not on duty in the Jalgaon Municipal Corporation. She was re-appointed on 22.02.2007 due to litigation. She has not completed continuous service of 10 years without intervention of the Court. Therefore, she is not entitled for the benefit of law laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Umadevi & others2.