Case Note & Summary
The case involves a batch of writ petitions filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging the appointments of certain respondents. During the final hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader argued the matter on behalf of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents were not appointed under the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) but were covered by a Government Resolution dated 31st January, 1996 issued by the Department of Revenue & Forest, State of Maharashtra. It was further submitted that subsequent to their appointments, they were absorbed in employment. The respondents' counsel argued that the petitioners' contention that the respondents were appointed under EGS was incorrect and should be rejected. The respondents' counsel prayed for a day's time to file affidavits of the respondents stating that they were appointed under the said Government Resolution. The court, presided by Justice S.S. Shinde, adjourned the matter to 7th January, 2010 to allow the respondents to file the affidavits. The judgment is an interim order and does not decide the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Employment Guarantee Scheme vs. Government Resolution - The court considered whether the respondents were appointed under the Employment Guarantee Scheme or under a Government Resolution dated 31st January, 1996 issued by the Revenue & Forest Department, State of Maharashtra. The respondents contended that they were not appointed under EGS but under the said Government Resolution and sought time to file affidavits to that effect. The court adjourned the matter to 7th January, 2010 to allow filing of affidavits. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents are appointed under the Employment Guarantee Scheme or under the Government Resolution dated 31st January, 1996 issued by the Revenue & Forest Department, State of Maharashtra.
Final Decision
The court adjourned the matter to 7th January, 2010 to allow the respondents to file affidavits stating that they are appointed under the Government Resolution dated 31st January, 1996 issued by the Revenue & Forest Department, State of Maharashtra.
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 459
Writ Petition No.3421 of 1991 with Writ Petition Nos.3422 to 3428 of 1991
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Service matter regarding appointment of respondents under Employment Guarantee Scheme or Government Resolution.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (State) sought rejection of respondents' contention that they were not appointed under EGS.
Filing Reason
Challenge to appointments of respondents.
Issues
Whether the respondents are appointed under the Employment Guarantee Scheme or under the Government Resolution dated 31st January, 1996 issued by the Revenue & Forest Department, State of Maharashtra.
Submissions/Arguments
The learned A.G.P. argued the matter at length and closed his arguments.
The learned Counsel for respondents submits that the respondents are not appointed under the Employment Guarantee Scheme and are covered by the Government Resolution dated 31st January, 1996 issued by the Department of Revenue & Forest, State of Maharashtra and subsequent to their appointments, they are absorbed in employment.
The learned Counsel for respondents would submit that the cases of the respondents are not covered under the E.G.S. and the very contention of the petitioners - State is required to be rejected.
The learned Counsel for respondents pray a day's time to file affidavits of the respondents stating therein that they are appointed under the Government Resolution dated 31st January, 1996 issued by the Revenue & Forest Department, State of Maharashtra.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Counsel for respondents submits that the respondents in all these petitions are not appointed under the Employment Guarantee Scheme and they are covered by the Government Resolution dated 31st January, 1996 issued by the Department of Revenue & Forest, State of Maharashtra and subsequent to their appointments, they are absorbed in employment.
Hence, S.O. to 7th January, 2010.
Procedural History
The matters were called out for final hearing. The learned A.G.P. argued the matter at length and closed his arguments. The learned Counsel for respondents made submissions and prayed for time to file affidavits. The court adjourned the matter to 7th January, 2010.
