The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Solapur vs. Ganesh Shantappa Warshetti
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Fixed Date by Court
Before:
Hon'ble Indira Banerjee, Hon'ble A.S. Bopanna
Stage:
PART HEARD MATTERS
Remarks:
Dismissed
Listed On:
23 Mar 2022
In:
Judge
Category:
UNKNOWN
Interlocutory Applications:
58524/2021, 58525/2021,
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.8395/2021)
The Chief Executive Officer .… Petitioner(s) Zilla Parishad, Solapur
Versus
Ashok Dhondiba Meher & Ors. …. Respondent(s)
WITH
SLP (C) No.6084 of 2021
SLP (C) No.11081 of 2021
SLP (C) No.7319 of 2021
SLP (C) No.7320 of 2021
SLP (C) No.6152 of 2021
SLP (C) No.6224 of 2021
SLP (C) No.6663 of 2021
SLP (C) No.6753 of 2021
SLP (C) No.6092 of 2021
SLP (C) No.6085 of 2021 Signature Not Verified
SLP (C) No.6155 of 2021 Date: 2022.03.28 16:59:42 IST Reason:
Digitally signed by Rachna
SLP (C) No.6481 of 2021
SLP (C) No.6530 of 2021
SLP (C) No.11056 of 2021
SLP (C) No.6615 of 2021
SLP (C) No.11051 of 2021
SLP (C) No.11494 of 2021
O R D E R
1. In these petitions, the Zilla Parishad, Solapur and the Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur are before this Court assailing the common order dated 08.12.2020, 09.03.2021, 29.01.2021 and 01.03.2021 in various writ petitions as detailed below in the tabular form for easy reference,
| S.No | Case No. | Party Name | Date of Impugned / |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interim Order | |||
| 1. | SLP (C) | The Chief Executive Officer | Impugned Judgment |
| No.8395/2021 | Zilla Parishad, Solapur | and interim Order dated | |
| Vs. | 08.12.2020 in WP ST | ||
| Ashok Dhondiba Meher and | No.92361/2020 | ||
| Ors. | |||
| 2. | SLP (C) No. | The Chief Executive Officer | Impugned Judgment |
| 6084/2021 | Zilla Parishad Solapur | and interim Order dated | |
| Vs. | 08.12.2020 in WP ST | ||
| Vivekanand Mallesha | No.92249/2020 | ||
| Pattedar and Ors. | |||
| 3. | SLP (C) No. | Chief Executive Officer | Impugned Judgment |
| 11081/2021 | Zilla Parishad Kolhapur | and final Order dated | |
| Vs. | 09.03.2021 in WP | ||
| Mahdev Hindurav Patil and | No.784/2021 | ||
| Ors. | |||
| 4. | SLP (C) No. | The Chief Executive Officer | Impugned Judgment |
| 7319/2021 | Zilla Parishad, Solapur | and interim Order dated | |
| Vs. | 29.01.2021 in WP ST | ||
| Amol Vitthal Ohale and | No.94001/2020 |
| 5. | SLP (C) No. | Ors.<br>The Chief Executive Officer | Impugned Judgment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7320/2021 | Zilla Parishad, Solapur<br>Vs. | and interim Order dated<br>29.01.2021 in WP ST | |
| Naushad Ismail Pathan and<br>Ors. | No. 98003/2020 | ||
| 6. | SLP (C) No.<br>6152/2021 | The Chief Executive Officer<br>Zilla Parishad Solapur<br>Vs. | Impugned Judgment<br>and interim Order dated<br>08.12.2020 in WP ST |
| Shrishail Devanand Hele<br>and Ors. | No.92773/2020 | ||
| 7. | SLP (C) No.<br>6224/2021 | The Chief Executive Officer<br>Zilla Parishad Solapur<br>Vs. | Impugned Judgment<br>and interim Order dated<br>08.12.2020 in WP ST |
| Samadhan Baburao<br>Kharche and Ors. | No.95030/2020 | ||
| 8. | SLP (C) No.<br>6663/2021 | The Chief Executive Officer<br>Zilla Parishad Solapur<br>Vs. | Impugned Judgment<br>and interim Order dated<br>08.12.2020 in WP ST |
| Nagendrayya<br>Panchalingayya Hiremath<br>and Ors. | No.92250/2020 | ||
| 9. | SLP (C) No.<br>6753/2021 | The Chief Executive Officer<br>Zilla Parishad Solapur<br>Vs. | Impugned Judgment<br>and interim Order dated<br>08.12.2020 in WP ST |
| 10. | SLP (C) No.<br>6092/2021 | Vikas M. Satpute and Ors.<br>The Chief Executive Officer<br>Zilla Parishad Solapur<br>Vs.<br>Satyawan Ramchandra | No.92683/2020<br>Impugned Judgment<br>and interim Order dated<br>08.12.2020 in WP ST<br>No.92674/2020 |
| 11. | SLP (C) | Thokale and Ors.<br>The Chief Executive Officer | Impugned Judgment |
| No.6085/2021 | Zilla Parishad Solapur<br>Vs.<br>Karan Sanjay Lokhande and | and interim Order dated<br>08.12.2020 in WP ST<br>No.92232/2020 | |
| 12. | SLP (C) No. | Ors.<br>The Chief Executive Officer | Impugned Judgment |
| 6155/2021 | Zilla Parishad Solapur<br>Vs.<br>Sachin Bhimrao Gore and | and Final Order dated<br>08.12.2020 in WP ST<br>No.92244/2020 | |
| Ors. | |||
| 13. | SLP (C) No.<br>6481/2021 | The Chief Executive Officer<br>Zilla Parishad Solapur<br>Vs. | Impugned Judgment<br>and interim Order dated<br>08.12.2020 in WP ST |
| Netaji Bajrang Jadhav and<br>Ors. | No.92685/2020 | ||
| 14. | SLP (C) No.<br>6530/2021 | The Chief Executive Officer<br>Zilla Parishad Solapur<br>Vs. | Impugned Judgment<br>and interim Order dated<br>08.12.2020 in WP ST |
| Siddeshwar Mahadeo<br>Randive and Ors. | No.92238/2020 | ||
| 15. | SLP (C) No. | Chief Executive Officer | (Judgment and final |
| 11056/2021 | Zilla Parishad Kolhapur<br>Vs.<br>Vasant Pandurang Patil and<br>Ors. | Order dated<br>01.03.2021) in WP ST<br>No.99852/2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16. | SLP (C) No.<br>6615/2021 | The Chief Executive Officer<br>Zilla Parishad Solapur<br>Vs. | Impugned Judgment<br>and interim Order dated<br>08.12.2020 in WP ST |
| Ganesh Shantappa<br>Warshetti and Ors. | No.92465/2020 | ||
| 17. | SLP (C) No. | Chief Executive Officer | Judgment and final |
| 11051/2021 | Zilla Parishad Kolhapur<br>Vs. | Order dated 09.03.2021<br>in WP ST | |
| Shrikant Shivaji Kumbhar<br>and Ors. | No.1580/2021 | ||
| 18. | SLP (C) No. | Chief Executive Officer | Judgment and final |
| 11494/2021 | Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur | Order dated 09.03.2021 | |
| Vs. | in WP ST No.427/2021 | ||
| Dagdu Pandurang Powar<br>and Ors. |
For the purpose of narration, the case as stated in SLP (C) No.8395/2021 is taken as the lead case. The issue however is common in all these cases.
2. The private respondents in all these cases are engaged as ambulance drivers. The ambulance vehicles belong to the Public Health Centres (for short 'PHC') situate within the administration of Zilla Parishad which are the petitioners herein. The undisputed position is that the Zilla Parishad through the health department had floated tender intimation seeking supply of contractual drivers from the licensed contractors so as to engage the said drivers on the government vehicles of the primary health centres in the district. Pursuant thereto, the tender process was finalized. The engagement of the contractors was based on the terms and conditions attached to the etender intimation. The private respondents herein were thus engaged for the benefit of rendering public health to the citizens but were employed through the contractors. The onus for payment of salary to the said drivers, in the tender process was imposed on the contractor which would thereafter be reimbursed by the Zilla Parishad pursuant to the funds being made available by the government.
3. When this was the position, certain drivers who were thus engaged in Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur had approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench at Nagpur through Writ Petition No.2247/2014, Dhiraj S. Wankhade & Ors. vs.
The Zilla Parishad Chandrapur & Others contending that the contractual drivers had been engaged to carry out the work of the establishment, namely the Zilla Parishad and they having completed more than 10 years of continuous service from the year 20042005, they are entitled to regularization of their services. The Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur which was the respondent in the said case had opposed the regularization. 4. The learned Division Bench of the High Court through its
judgment dated 20.11.2019 had kept in view the decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi (3) and Others 2006 (4) SCC 1, State of Orissa and Another vs. Mamta Mohanty 2011 AIR SCW 1332, Renu and
Others vs. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari and Another 2014 (2) SCALE 262 and State of Jharkhand and Others vs. Kamal Prasad and Others (2014) 7 SCC 223 and arrived at the conclusion that the relief of regularization sought for by the petitioners therein cannot be acceded to. However, the learned Division Bench had taken note of the nature of employment of the drivers and in that view had kept in perspective the decision of this Court in State of Punjab and Others vs.
Jagjit Singh and Others (2017) 1 SCC 148 with specific reference
to para 58 therein which read as hereunder:
"58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Anyone who is compelled to work at a lesser wage does not do so voluntarily. He does so to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his selfrespect and dignity, at the cost of his selfworth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows that his dependants would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position, Undoubtedly the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation."
5. In that light, keeping in view the concept of a welfare state
and taking note that the fruits of labour cannot be denied to the employee who performs the same work as that of another employee and in the instant case, the drivers who were directly employed under the government are paid better wages, the learned Division Bench was of the view that as considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) the petitioners therein should at least be extended the benefit of the wages paid at the minimum of the pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale) extended to regular employees holding the same post.
6. In that background, keeping in view that this Court had discouraged regularization of service, but had however protected the interest of employees with regard to the emoluments, to an extent and also keeping in perspective that the learned Division Bench of Nagpur Bench had extended such benefit to the similarly placed ambulance drivers, the High Court in the instant case applied the said judgment in the case of Dhiraj S Wankhade (supra) and directed that the private respondents herein who were the petitioners in the writ petitions which were the subject matter of consideration relating to the instant case, be paid wages at the minimum of the payscale (at the lowest grade), in the regular payscale extended to the regular employees holding the same post with effect from the date of the petition.
7. The learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad and the State of Maharashtra while assailing the judgment would contend that the private respondents are not directly employed under the Zilla Parishad or the State either as contract employees or in any other capacity. On the other hand, they are the employees of the contractor who has been engaged in accordance with law after floating tender intimation. It is therefore contended that there being no privity of contract, the private respondents cannot be equated with the employees directly employed under the Zilla Parishad or the State Government for the purpose of parity in pay. In that view, it is contended that the judgment passed by the High Court is not justified.
8. The learned counsel for the private respondents on the other hand would contend that the High Court itself has been conscious of the limitations imposed by this Court in the matter of regularization or granting parity in pay. In that view, the High Court having applied its mind to the fact situation has taken note of the earlier decision of a coordinate bench wherein all aspects had been adverted to and the limited relief as permissible in law was granted and it is in that circumstance on applying the said order which is based on the decision of this Court to provide adequate pay under a welfare State a limited relief was granted.
When in that circumstance, the limited relief is granted is within the parameters of law, the same will not call for any interference is the submission.
9. In the light of the above, we have taken note of the circumstance in which the benefit has been extended by the High Court to the private respondents herein. The learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad and the State government placed reliance on the decision of Uma Devi (3) (supra) with specific reference to para 55 even on the aspect relating to the benefit of the wages that has been granted by the High Court. In that regard, a perusal of the decisions cited would indicate that this Court has held that the direction issued by the High Court in the case which was the subject matter of consideration in Uma Devi (3) (supra) to persons engaged on daily wages, to be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service is not sustainable. The said situation has not arisen in the instant case, inasmuch as, such parity of salary and allowances has not been ordered to be paid in the instant case. The decision in T.M. Sampath and Others vs. Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources and Others (2015) 5 SCC 333 relied on by the learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad with specific reference to para 16 and 17 thereof will not also be of assistance. In the said case, the issue was with regard to the parity between the employees of NWDA and Central Government employees wherein it was held that the employees of NWDA cannot be held on par with their counterparts in the Central Government with reference to the General Financial Rules, which is not the situation in the present case. Further, the decision in State of Maharashtra vs. Bhagwan Civil Appeal No.76827684 of 2021 dated 10.01.2022 relied upon by the learned counsel for the State is not of any assistance in the instant case since the issue essentially considered therein was with regard to the pensionary benefits which was claimed by the employees of Water and Land Management Institute which was held against the employees who claimed such benefit.
10. In the above circumstance, it is noticed that in the present facts the only relief granted by the High Court to the private respondents herein is to be paid the wages at the minimum of the payscale at the lowest grade, in the regular payscale extended to the regular employees holding the same post. The said benefit ordered to be extended is in tune with the observations of this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra). Further, in the instant facts what cannot be overlooked is also that the private respondents though employed through the contractors are discharging the onerous duties of driving the ambulance which is operated to provide the benefit of public health to the citizens in the PHC's under the Zilla Parishad which in turn is for discharging the obligation of the State. Therefore, in such circumstances, the minimum relief that has been granted by the High Court would not call for interference. We at this juncture also take note of the fact that the judgment dated 20.11.2019 passed by the coordinate bench of the High Court in Dhiraj S. Wankhade (supra), relied upon by the High Court in the instant case had been assailed before this Court in a Special Leave Petition (Civil) bearing Diary No.12195/2020. However, the Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed by this Court on 22.02.2021. 11. Accordingly, the above petitions, being devoid of merit stand
dismissed.
12. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
……………………….J. (INDIRA BANERJEE)
……………………….J. (A.S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi, March 23, 2022 ITEM NO.10/1 COURT NO.8 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8395/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-12-2020 in WPST No. 92361/2020 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay)
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ASHOK DHONDIBA MEHER & ORS. Respondent(s)
([PART HEARD BY HON. INDIRA BANERJEE AND HON. A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.] )
WITH
SLP(C) No. 6084/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.53057/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.53059/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 11081/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.84653/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.84654/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 7319/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.65467/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.65468/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 7320/2021 (IX)
SLP(C) No. 6152/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.53896/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.53898/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6224/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.54885/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.54886/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6663/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.58949/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.58950/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6753/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.59941/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.59942/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6092/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.53176/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.53188/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6085/2021 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.53076/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.53078/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 53076/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 53078/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 6155/2021 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.53875/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.53877/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 6481/2021 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.56942/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.56944/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 6530/2021 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.57762/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.57763/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 11056/2021 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.84294/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.84298/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 6615/2021 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.58524/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.58525/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 58524/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 58525/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 11051/2021 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.84231/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.84233/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 11494/2021 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.88042/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.88046/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 23-03-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Amol B. Karande, AOR Mr. Sarvan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, AOR Mr. Sidheshwar Namdev Biradar, Adv. Mr. Yash Prashant Sonavane, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Shivajirao Kachare, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Ajit Kale, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Ramesh Joshi, Adv.
Mr. Sudhanshu Kaushesh, Adv. Mr. P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Suvidh Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Palav Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. K.P. Jayaram, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Tyagi, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv. Ms. Bhavya Pande, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv. For M/S. Dr. R.r. Deshpande And Associates, AOR Mr. Sudhanshu Kaushesh, Adv. Mr. P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Suvidh Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Palav Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. K.P. Jayaram, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, AOR Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv. Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv. Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Adv
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The special leave petitions are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA) (MATHEW ABRAHAM)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)
R E V I S E D
ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.8 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8395/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-12-2020 in WPST No. 92361/2020 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay)
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ASHOK DHONDIBA MEHER & ORS. Respondent(s)
([PART HEARD BY HON. INDIRA BANERJEE AND HON. A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.] )
WITH
SLP(C) No. 6084/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.53057/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.53059/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 11081/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.84653/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.84654/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 7319/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.65467/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.65468/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 7320/2021 (IX)
SLP(C) No. 6152/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.53896/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.53898/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6224/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.54885/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.54886/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6663/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.58949/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.58950/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6753/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.59941/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.59942/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6092/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.53176/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.53188/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 6085/2021 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.53076/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.53078/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 53076/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 53078/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 6155/2021 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.53875/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.53877/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 6481/2021 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.56942/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.56944/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 6530/2021 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.57762/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.57763/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 11056/2021 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.84294/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.84298/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 6615/2021 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.58524/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.58525/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 58524/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 58525/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 11051/2021 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.84231/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.84233/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 11494/2021 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.88042/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.88046/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 23-03-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Amol B. Karande, AOR Mr. Sarvan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, AOR Mr. Sidheshwar Namdev Biradar, Adv. Mr. Yash Prashant Sonavane, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Shivajirao Kachare, Adv.
Ms. Sakshi Ajit Kale, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Ramesh Joshi, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Kaushesh, Adv. Mr. P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Suvidh Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Palav Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. K.P. Jayaram, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Tyagi, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv. Ms. Bhavya Pande, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv. For M/S. Dr. R.r. Deshpande And Associates, AOR Mr. Sudhanshu Kaushesh, Adv. Mr. P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Suvidh Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Palav Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. K.P. Jayaram, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, AOR Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv. Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv.
Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Adv
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The special leave petitions are dismissed.
Reasons to follow.
(GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA) (MATHEW ABRAHAM)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.8 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8395/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-12-2020 in WPST No. 92361/2020 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay)
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ASHOK DHONDIBA MEHER & ORS. Respondent(s)
([PART HEARD BY HON. INDIRA BANERJEE AND HON. A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.] )
WITH
SLP(C) No. 6084/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.53057/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.53059/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 11081/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.84653/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.84654/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 7319/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.65467/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.65468/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 7320/2021 (IX)
SLP(C) No. 6152/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.53896/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.53898/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6224/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.54885/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.54886/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6663/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.58949/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.58950/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6753/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.59941/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.59942/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6092/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.53176/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.53188/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6085/2021 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.53076/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.53078/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 53076/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 53078/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 6155/2021 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.53875/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.53877/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 6481/2021 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.56942/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.56944/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 6530/2021 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.57762/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.57763/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 11056/2021 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.84294/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.84298/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 6615/2021 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.58524/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.58525/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 58524/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 58525/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 11051/2021 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.84231/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.84233/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 11494/2021 (IX) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.88042/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.88046/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 23-03-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, AOR Mr. Sidheshwar Namdev Biradar, Adv. Mr. Yash Prashant Sonavane, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Shivajirao Kachare, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Ajit Kale, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Ramesh Joshi, Adv. Mr. Amol B. Karande, AOR Mr. S. Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sudhanshu Kaushesh, Adv. Mr. P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Suvidh Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Palav Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. K.P. Jayaram, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Tyagi, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv. Ms. Bhavya Pande, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv. For M/S. Dr. R.r. Deshpande And Associates, AOR Mr. Sudhanshu Kaushesh, Adv. Mr. P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Suvidh Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Palav Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. K.P. Jayaram, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, AOR Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv. Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv. Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Adv
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The special leave petitions are dismissed.
Reasons to follow.
(GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA) (MATHEW ABRAHAM)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)