STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SUBHASH GOPINATH CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

(2.) The present respondent had filed Original Application No. 572/2015 to grant him assured career progress scheme benefit and deemed date of promotion as per the deemed date granted by the Superintending Engineer Aurangabad under order dated 25.08.2014. The Tribunal partly allowed the original application in terms of the deemed date. Aggrieved thereby the State has filed the present petition.

(3.) The learned advocate for the petitioner/State of Maharashtra submits that, the respondent/original applicant was appointed on work charged establishment as a junior engineer on 21.02.1983 for specific period and for specific work. The appointment was on purely temporary basis and respondent joined the E.G.S. work at Aurangabad. The services of the respondent were terminated on 30th June, 1987 as the E.G.S. work for which he was appointed was completed. The learned counsel states that, the Government took a policy decision under the Government Resolution dated 06.12.1989 to fill the vacant posts of temporary establishment from 136 junior engineers who had worked on work charged establishment and were terminated after the work was completed. It is clearly mentioned in the said Government Resolution that the appointments of these junior engineers would be on temporary establishment and would be totally fresh new appointments and they would not get any benefit of previous service rendered on work charged establishment. The respondent joined on the regular temporary establishment on 29.12.1989. He was upgraded on the post of sectional engineer. According to the learned counsel, the respondent is seeking deemed date on the basis of one granted to Mr. A. D. Salve. Benefit granted to Mr. Salve has been withdrawn. The petitioner is seeking parity with Mr. Salve, who was given the deemed date of appointment as 26.02.1984 by the Superintending Engineer under order dated 25.08.2014. According to the learned counsel said benefit given to Mr. Salve has been withdrawn. The Tribunal has wrongly relied on Government Resolution dated 15.02.1997. The said Government resolution is not applicable to the respondent. It relates to only continuous work charged service. The conditions put forth in the order of appointment of the respondent are not binding upon the respondent. The appointment order itself says that the respondent would not be entitled for any benefit of previous service. Same was accepted by the respondent and now he cannot resile.