THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERING MAHARASHRA JEEVAN PRADHIKARAN MANDAL AND OTHERSversusSANTOSH KISANRAO HOTTE

2026:BHC-AUG:21493
                                                              Writ Petition No.6004/2019
                                              :: 1 ::




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                              WRIT PETITION NO.6004 OF 2019


            The Superintending Engineer (President,
            Circle Committee), Maharashtra Jeevan
            Pradhikaran, Mandal, Aurangabad & ors.            ….Petitioners

                     VERSUS

            Santosh s/o Kisanrao Hotte                        ….Respondent

                                           .......
            Mr. A.G. Vasmatkar, Advocate for petitioners

                                              ....…

                                     CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                     DATE     : 28th APRIL, 2026

            PER COURT :


            1.          Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.


            2.          The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25/7/2018,

            passed by the learned Industrial Court, Aurangabad in Complaint (ULP)

            No.95/2012, whereby the learned Industrial Court directed the petitioner

            to give designation of Tracer to the respondent/ complainant from the date

            of filing of complaint by obtaining necessary permission.
                                                    Writ Petition No.6004/2019
                                   :: 2 ::


3.           Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the

respondent/ complainant was appointed on 16/4/1985 as a labour on daily

wages.   After completion of 5 years, he was brought on Converted

Regular Temporary Establishment (CRTE). He was posted on the post of

Karkoon in Drawing Department of the petitioner. He submitted that, the

respondent/ employee filed complaint before the learned Industrial Court

and prayed for designation on the post of Tracer and also claimed benefits

available for the post of Tracer from 16/4/1985. He submits that, after

receipt of the notice, the petitioner appeared and resisted the claim. He

submitted that, on behalf of the petitioner, the Executive Engineer Mr.

P.D. Bhamare was examined.          He submits that, as the respondent/

employee was not eligible for appointment on the post of Tracer,

therefore, only because for some time he was asked to work as a Tracer,

all the benefits which are available to the said post cannot be accorded in

favour of the respondent/ employee and, therefore, the order passed by the

Industrial Court is liable to be quashed and set aside.


4.           Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, as per

the Service Regulations which are framed by the petitioner Maharashtra

Jeevan Pradhikaran, the respondent/ employee was not Draftsman,

Assistant Draftsman and Tracer (Group ‘C’) in Water Resources

Department (Recruitment) Rules, 2016. The respondent was not fulfilling
                                                       Writ Petition No.6004/2019
                                     :: 3 ::


the eligibility for giving promotion and, therefore, the order passed by the

learned Industrial Court be quashed and set aside. In support of his

contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the law laid down

by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Jyostnamayee Mishra Vs.

The State of Odisha & ors. (AIR 2025 SC 676). Paragraph Nos.29 and

31 of the said judgment read thus :


        29. There cannot be more casualness than this where the
        authority of the State is fighting litigation and does not
        apprise the Tribunal or the Court about the relevant
        applicable rules. The effort may be to put under covers the
        illegalities committed by them earlier by granting
        promotion from the post of Peon to that of Tracer in
        violation of the 1979 Rules. Even the High Court in the
        impugned order has not referred to the 1979 Rules but has
        quoted paragraph 3(d) of the Letter No.4775 dated
        26.02.1980. The scheme of the Rules has already been
        explained in paragraph above. What is said to be
        paragraph 3(d) of the letter is in fact Rule 5(3)(d) of the
        1979 Rules.

        31.     Another argument was raised while referring to two
        communications dated 28.06.1999 appointing Ms. Jhina Rani
        Mansingh and Sri Lalatendu Rath as Tracer on promotion,
        claiming to be from the post of Peon, on the basis of which the
        petitioner is claiming violation of Article 14, namely the
        discrimination. Suffice to add, this Court cannot put a stamp on
        the illegalities committed by the department while perpetuating
        the same. A litigant coming to the Court cannot claim negative
        discrimination seeking direction from the Court to the
        department to act in violation of the law or statutory Rules. It is
        a settled proposition of law that Article 14 does not envisage
        negative equality. Reference for the purpose can be made to a
        judgment of this Court in R. Muthukumar & ors. v. The
        Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO & others
        [MANU/SC/0850/2013].”
                                                  Writ Petition No.6004/2019
                                  :: 4 ::


5.             Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after

going through the documents which are filed along with the Writ Petition,

and the findings recorded by the learned Industrial Court, I find that, the

learned Industrial Court framed the issues that, “Whether the complainant

proves that the respondent was transferred from one place to another

under the guise of following management policy” and findings on the

issue are recorded in negative.


6.             As regards Issue Nos.2, 3 and 4 are concerned, the Issue

No.2, “Whether the complainant proves that the respondents have shown

favouritism or partiality to one set of workers regardless of merits?”, the

finding is recorded in affirmative. As regards the third issue, “Whether

the complainant proves that the respondents employed him as a “badli”

casual or temporary and continued him as such for years, with the object

of depriving him of the status and privileges of permanent employee?”,

the finding is recorded in affirmative and on Issue No.4, “Whether the

complainant proves that the respondents failed to implement any Award,

Settlement or Agreement?”, the finding on this issue is recorded in

affirmative.


7.             On the basis of above referred findings, and after

documentary and oral evidence, it was proved that the respondent/

employee was working as a Tracer though he was designated as a Clerk.
                                                    Writ Petition No.6004/2019
                                   :: 5 ::


It has also come on record and proved by the respondent/ employee that,

even as per Exh.U-52 and U-58, the Sub-Divisional Engineer and the

Executive Engineer have issued certificate to the complainant i.e.

respondent that the respondent complainant has performed his duties in

the Drawing Department Section. It was also proved by the letters that the

respondent/ employee knows Drawings and also there was a

correspondence that it was asked to the respondent/ employee to prepare

the revenue map and drawings.


             Therefore, from all these correspondence and experience

certificate, the respondent/ employee proved that since from the date of

joining, he was working in Drawing Department and during that period,

even the authorities asked him to prepare the map, drawing and training

work. Therefore, considering the duties performed by the respondent/

employee, the Superintending Engineer forwarded the application to the

superior officer to give designation of Tracer to the respondent.

Therefore, once the higher officers also accepted the fact that the

respondent as working as a Tracer for years together on the said post, the

authorities are not supposed to deny him the designation as well as the

benefits available to the post. Therefore, considering the above, I find that

the learned industrial Court has not committed any error while allowing

the complaint filed by the respondent/ employee. Therefore, I do not find
                                                  Writ Petition No.6004/2019
                                  :: 6 ::


any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Industrial Court. Hence,

the Writ Petition is devoid of merits. The same is hereby dismissed. No

order as to costs.



                               (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)


fmp/-