Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Sambhaji Dagduba Deokule, Prabhavati Vishwambharrao Patil, and Gulabpasha Ismail Shaikh, were daily wagers under the Latur Municipal Corporation. They were appointed to regular posts of Clerk/Typist by an order dated 03/02/2022, with effect from 28/12/2020. They filed a writ petition seeking a direction that their appointments be regularised from 09-04-1997, interpreting an earlier order of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.8847 of 2016 dated 13-12-2016. The petitioners argued that the earlier order entitled them to regularisation from that date. The respondents opposed the petition. The court examined the order in WP/8847/2016 and found that it did not contain any direction for regularisation from a specific date. The appointment order itself gave effect from 28/12/2020. The court held that without a specific direction in the earlier order, the petitioners could not claim regularisation from 1997. The petition was dismissed, and no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation - Retrospective Effect - Appointment Order Dated 03/02/2022 - Petitioners sought regularisation from 09-04-1997 relying on order in WP/8847/2016 - Court held that the order in WP/8847/2016 did not direct regularisation from any specific date and the appointment order itself gave effect from 28/12/2020 - No direction for retrospective regularisation from 1997 could be read into the order - Petition dismissed (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, appointed as Clerk/Typist on 03/02/2022 with effect from 28/12/2020, are entitled to regularisation from 09-04-1997 based on an earlier court order in WP/8847/2016.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Regularisation cannot be granted from a date prior to actual appointment
- Interpretation of court orders must be based on plain language
- No retrospective effect without express direction
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (10) 269
Writ Petition No.4072 of 2025
Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, Ajit B. Kadethankar
Mr. S. S. Kadtane for petitioners, Ms. P. R. Bharaswadkar for respondent-State, Mr. H. V. Patil for respondent no.1
Sambhaji Dagduba Deokule, Prabhavati Vishwambharrao Patil, Gulabpasha Ismail Shaikh
Latur Municipal Corporation, Latur; The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking regularisation of appointment from a date prior to actual appointment.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of appointment order dated 03/02/2022 to the extent of appointment from 28/12/2020 and direction to regularise appointments from 09-04-1997.
Filing Reason
Petitioners claimed entitlement to regularisation from 09-04-1997 based on an earlier court order in WP/8847/2016.
Previous Decisions
Order dated 13-12-2016 in Writ Petition No.8847 of 2016.
Issues
Whether the petitioners are entitled to regularisation from 09-04-1997 based on the order in WP/8847/2016.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the earlier court order entitled them to regularisation from 09-04-1997.
Respondents opposed the petition, contending that the appointment order gave effect from 28/12/2020 and no retrospective regularisation was warranted.
Ratio Decidendi
The order in WP/8847/2016 did not direct regularisation from any specific date; the appointment order dated 03/02/2022 gave effect from 28/12/2020; without a specific direction, regularisation cannot be granted from 1997.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners although having been appointed on regular posts of ‘Clerk/Typist’ by the R.No.1 Latur Municipal Corporation w.e.f. 2020, they seek directions that their appointment on the said posts be regularised w.e.f 09-04-1997 interpreting the order dtd.13-12-2016 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.8477 of 2016.
Procedural History
Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.4072 of 2025 before the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad. The court heard the matter finally with consent and dismissed the petition on 04-10-2025.
