Bombay High Court Dismisses State's Petition Challenging MAT Order on Absorption of Temporary Workers - Limitation Plea Rejected as Continuing Cause of Action. The court upheld the MAT order granting absorption to five workers as semiskilled workers under the Kalelkar Settlement, holding that the claim was not barred by limitation due to continuing cause of action.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 184
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The State of Maharashtra, through the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Nagpur, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27.11.1997 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), Nagpur. The MAT had partly allowed the application of five respondents (Rajendra Krushnarao Bamraotwar and others) directing their absorption on converted regular temporary establishment as semiskilled workers in the pay scale of Rs.260-495 with effect from 1.4.1987 for applicants 1 to 4 and 1.4.1988 for applicant no.5. The MAT further directed that they would not be entitled to arrears of pay or consequential benefits but would be entitled to proper fixation of pay. The State's main challenge was that the application before MAT was barred by limitation. The respondents' claim was based on the Kalelkar Settlement, and they had been absorbed and taken on C.R.T.E. with effect from 1.4.1986 vide order dated 7.10.1989. The High Court observed that the cause of action was continuing and therefore the limitation plea was not acceptable. The court noted that no interim relief was granted when the petition was admitted on 25.8.1998, and the State was under obligation to comply with the MAT order. The court found no interference warranted, especially on the ground of limitation. The petition was dismissed.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Absorption - Limitation - Continuing Cause of Action - The petitioner challenged the order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal granting absorption to respondents as semiskilled workers with effect from 1.4.1987/1.4.1988. The court held that the cause of action was continuing and therefore the claim was not barred by limitation. The court declined to interfere with the MAT order. (Paras 2-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the claim for absorption and consequential benefits was barred by limitation.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the MAT order dated 27.11.1997.

Law Points

  • Continuing cause of action
  • Limitation
  • Absorption of temporary employees
  • Kalelkar Settlement
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (BOM) (07) 151

WRIT PETITION NO. 2569 OF 1998

2013-07-15

Anoop V. Mohta, Z.A. Haq

Ms. P.D. Rane, AGP for Petitioner; Mr. Raees B. Khan for Respondents

State of Maharashtra, through the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Div. No. 1, Sadar, Nagpur

Rajendra Krushnarao Bamraotwar, Makimilan Paul Carle, Sudhakar Manohar Pathak, Sampat Bakaram Saradkar, Motiram Harbaji Pendam

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal regarding absorption of temporary workers.

Remedy Sought

State sought to set aside MAT order granting absorption to respondents.

Filing Reason

State challenged MAT order on ground of limitation.

Previous Decisions

MAT partly allowed application of respondents on 27.11.1997.

Issues

Whether the claim for absorption was barred by limitation.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the application before MAT was barred by time. Respondents relied on Kalelkar Settlement and continuing cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi

The cause of action for absorption and consequential benefits is continuing, and therefore the claim is not barred by limitation.

Judgment Excerpts

Once there is no denial to the settlement, we are inclined to observe that the cause of action is continuing. The order so passed, in our view, needs no interference specially at the instance of the petitioner on the ground of limitation.

Procedural History

MAT passed order on 27.11.1997. State filed writ petition on 25.8.1998, which was admitted without interim relief. The petition was dismissed on 15.7.2013.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses State's Petition Challenging MAT Order on Absorption of Temporary Workers - Limitation Plea Rejected as Continuing Cause of Action. The court upheld the MAT order granting absorption to five workers as semiskilled workers ...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Goa Upholds Conviction in NDPS Act Case for Possession of 2.225 kg Charas. Mandatory compliance with Section 50 of NDPS Act not triggered as recovery was from bag, not person.