Bombay High Court
Pandurang Supadu Patil vs The Branch Manager, Irrigation ... on 7 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:14728-DB
*1* wp3163o14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3163 OF 2014
Pandurang s/o Supadu Patil
Age: 61 Years, Occu.: Retired
R/o Semode, Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhule.
Died during pendency of petition.
His L.Rs. are brought on record
in view order dated 25.11.2022.
Pandurang S/o Supadu Patil
Died Thorough the Legal Heirs
1) Pramilabai Wd/o Pandurang Patil
& Rayate,
Age 56 years, Occu. Household,
2) Narendra S/o Pandurang Patil
& Rayate,
Age 36 years, Occu. Agril,
3) Umesh S/o Pandurang Patil & Rayate,
Age 34 years, Occu. Agril,
4) Himmat S/o Pandurang Patil & Rayate,
Age 33 years, Occu. Agril,
All R/o Semode, Tq. Sakri,
District: Dhule.
...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
01. The Branch Manager,
Irrigation Project, Dist. Dhule.
02. The Sub-Division Officer
Irrigation Sub-Division Sakri,
Dist. Dhule.
*2* wp3163o14
03. The Executive Engineer,
Irrigation Division, Dhule
Dist. Dhule.
04. Superintending Engineer,
Nasik Irrigation Circle, Nasik.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Shri V.D. Gunale, advocate for the petitioners.
Dr. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, AGP for the respondents/
State.
...
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT
&
SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.
Reserved on : 23 March 2026
Pronounced on : 07 April 2026
JUDGMENT (Per Sushil M. Ghodeswar, J.) :-
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.
3. By the instant petition, the petitioner (now deceased) sought direction to the respondents to consider his claim for permanency as per Government Resolution dated 30.07.1994 and *3* wp3163o14 further he be paid consequential benefits accordingly.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he had worked as daily wage worker with the respondents from 1983 in pursuance of his appointment order dated 05.11.1983. The respondents used to give him technical breaks and he was never made permanent. According to the petitioner, on 01.07.1988, he was terminated, therefore, he filed Complaint (ULP) No.45/1989 before the Labour Court at Dhule. The Labour Court vide judgment dated 21.02.1992 allowed the complaint and directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity and full backwages. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondents approached the Industrial Court in Revision (ULP) No.202/1992. The Industrial Court, vide judgment dated 13.01.1994, partly allowed the revision, however, directed the respondents to keep the petitioner in service. It was also directed to recover salary of Rs.29,000/-, which was paid to the petitioner during the period 1988 to 1992. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.01.1994, the petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No.2158/1996 and this Court granted stay to recovery. According to the petitioner, the respondents did not challenge the judgment of the *4* wp3163o14 Industrial Court, therefore, the direction to reinstate the petitioner was intact.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that according to Government Resolution dated 30.07.1994, the daily wage employees who are in continuous five year service, be taken on Converted Regular Temporary Establishment (CRTE) and their services be regularized. Accordingly, the respondents issued the office order dated 14.09.1994 thereby, giving the benefits of Government Resolution dated 30.07.1994 to the petitioner and other daily wage employees. In the list of employees, the petitioner's name appeared at Serial No.82 and he was taken on CRTE from 27.12.1988.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3/ Executive Engineer issued the communication dated 21.12.1994 to the petitioner stating therein that since the petitioner has not completed five years continuous service, he cannot be appointed on CRTE. It was also stated that the petitioner's petition is pending before this Court and unless and until it is decided, the petitioner cannot claim such permanency. According to the petitioner, the petitioner made several representations and *5* wp3163o14 ultimately, there was compromise between the petitioner and the respondents wherein, it was agreed that the petitioner would withdraw the writ petition and the respondents would take the petitioner on CRTE. Accordingly, the said writ petition was withdrawn on 15.02.2001.
7. According to the petitioner, the petitioner made several representations pointing out that the petitioner has withdrawn the petition, he had also completed more than five years service and therefore, the benefits of permanency be extended to the petitioner. However, except communications between authorities, nothing had happened. In the meantime, on 31.12.2010 the petitioner retired as daily rated worker. Even after retirement, the petitioner made representation dated 17.11.2011 requesting to give benefits of permanency. As no decision is taken and benefits of permanency are not given, the petitioner filed the instant petition.
8. The learned advocate Shri Gunale appearing for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the petition and pointed out that as per Government Resolution dated 30.07.1994, the petitioner was entitled for permanency, however, the *6* wp3163o14 authorities did not give the said benefits. Though there is compromise between the parties and accordingly, the petitioner has withdrawn the petition and there were orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court in favour of the petitioner, still the benefits of permanency are not extended. In support of his submissions, Shri Gunale has relied upon the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.712/2017 (Balaji Shamrao Gaikwad vs. The State of Maharashtra and others).
9. On the other hand, the learned AGP appearing for the respondents/ State has opposed the petition. He drew our attention to the affidavit in reply dated 30.03.2016. The learned AGP submitted that in view of the order of the Labour Court dated 21.02.1992, the petitioner was reinstated on 29.02.1992. According to the learned AGP, in view of Government Resolution dated 30.07.1994, the petitioner was brought on Converted Regular Temporary Establishment (CRTE) w.e.f. 27.12.1988. However, in view of the order dated 03.04.1999 of the Industrial Court, Nashik, in Complaint (ULP) No.477/1992, the petitioner was entitled to be brought on CRTE w.e.f.
*7* wp3163o14 17.05.1992. However, the petitioner has suppressed this fact. In view of the order dated 03.04.1999 of the Industrial Court, the effect of Government Resolution dated 30.07.1994 is nullified.
10. According to the learned AGP, as per Government Resolution dated 30.07.1994, the daily wage worker, who has completed more than five years of service and who is willing to waive his arrears, is considered for appointment on CRTE. In the present case, as per the said Government Resolution, the petitioner was brought on CRTE w.e.f. 27.12.1988. However, the petitioner did not waive arrears, therefore, his name was not considered while preparing the list on 28.05.2001. The learned AGP, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and the petition be dismissed.
11. With the assistance of the learned advocates, we have gone through the petition paper book and the documents brought on record. It is undisputed that the petitioner was reinstated in employment w.e.f. 29.02.1992 in view of the order of the Labour Court dated 21.02.1992, which order was also continued by the Industrial Court. It is also undisputed that the petitioner was brought on CRTE w.e.f. 27.12.1988 in view of *8* wp3163o14 Government Resolution dated 30.07.1994. Writ Petition No.2158/1996 filed by the petitioner was withdrawn on 15.02.2001 in view of the compromise between the parties.
12. The principal objection raised by the respondents that the petitioner did not waive arrears and, therefore, was not entitled to be continued on CRTE or to be regularized, cannot be accepted. The record indicates that the petitioner was, in fact, granted the benefit of being brought on Converted Regular Temporary Establishment w.e.f. 27.12.1988 pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 30.07.1994. Once such benefit was extended, it was not open for the respondents to subsequently deny consequential benefits on hyper-technical grounds, particularly when the petitioner had rendered long and continuous service.
13. The contention of the respondents that the order dated 03.04.1999 passed by the Industrial Court nullifies the effect of the Government Resolution dated 30.07.1994, is also devoid of merit. The said order does not take away the statutory or policy benefits available to the petitioner under the Government Resolution. On the contrary, the material on record *9* wp3163o14 demonstrates that the petitioner continued in service pursuant to the orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court, thereby satisfying the requirement of continuous service as contemplated under the said Government Resolution.
14. It is also material to note that the petitioner had withdrawn Writ Petition No.2158/1996 on 15.02.2001 on the basis of a settlement arrived at with the respondents, wherein it was agreed that the petitioner would be extended the benefit of CRTE. Having accepted the withdrawal of the petition on such understanding, the respondents cannot now resile from their obligation and deny the benefit of regularization to the petitioner. Such conduct on the part of the respondents is clearly arbitrary and unsustainable.
15. The petitioner has rightly relied upon the unreported order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.712/2017 (Balaji Shamrao Gaikwad vs. The State of Maharashtra and others), wherein in similar circumstances, this Court has directed grant of benefits under similar Government Resolution dated 24.11.2000 by which, the Government has decided that daily wage employees, who are in *10* wp3163o14 service till the date of Government Resolution and have completed five years continuous service, be taken on CRTE and their services are to be regularized. The case of the present petitioner stands on an identical footing and, therefore, he is entitled to parity in relief.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to be regularized in terms of the Government Resolution dated 30.07.1994 and to receive all consequential benefits.
17. Hence, the following order:-
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner
as regularized in service in terms of Government Resolution dated 30.07.1994 w.e.f. 29.02.1992 and to grant all consequential benefits.
(iii) The respondents shall compute and release all monetary benefits payable to the petitioner and same be paid to his legal heirs, within a period of FOUR MONTHS from the date of this judgment.
*11* wp3163o14
(iv) There shall be no order as to costs.
18. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
kps (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.) (KISHORE C. SANT, J.)