Bombay High Court
PRAVIN PRAKASH DONGAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The court held that the petitioner’s services must be protected and the corporation and state are bound to process a regularisation proposal within 30 and 60 days respectively, following the earlier decision.
Summary
The petitioner, a child specialist employed on a contractual basis, filed a writ petition seeking the regularisation of his services with the municipal corporation. The petitioner relied on a prior decision of the same court in Arti Nlesh Dapse & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 3053 of 2023) which mandated the corporation to submit a regularisation proposal within 30 days and the state to decide within 60 days. The court held that the earlier precedent squarely covered the present case and therefore ordered the corporation to send the proposal within the stipulated period and the state to act on it within 60 days. It further protected the petitioner’s services pending the final decision, prohibiting termination on the ground of contractual status and staying any adverse order for four weeks. The petition was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- The petitioner’s contractual employment can be regularised as a permanent post.
- Whether the corporation must submit a regularisation proposal within 30 days and the state must decide within 60 days as per the earlier precedent.
- Whether the petitioner’s services should be protected pending the final decision of the state.
Subjects
- child specialist
- regularisation
- contractual employee
- writ petition
- service protection
- administrative law
Judgment
1 933-WP-6506-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6506 OF 2016
Pravin Prakash Dongare
Vs
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. P. V. Barde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya AGP for State.
Mr. V. S. Bedre, for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 19th AUGUST 2026.
PC :-
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGP for the
respondent – State and learned counsel for Respondent No.2.
2. By consent, this matter is taken up finally at the stage of admission.
3. This petition is filed seeking appropriate writ directing respondents
benefit to confer permanency upon the petitioner by regularizing services of
the petitioner as a Child Specialist with respondent No.2 – Corporation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue is now covered
by the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.3053
of 2023, decided on 5 April 2023, in the case of Arti Nlesh Dapse & Ors. Vs.
The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary & Ors., wherein this Court has
Kiran Kawre
2 933-WP-6506-2016
directed the Corporation to send a proposal within 30 days and the State
Government to deal with the said proposal within 60 days thereafter. This
Court had also protected the services of the petitioner therein till the final
decision is taken by the State Government.
5. We have perused the aforesaid decision and, in our view, the issue
stands conclusively covered by the said decision. Adopting and following the
reasoning given in the above decision, we direct respondent No.2 to send the
proposal within 30 days to respondent No.1, and respondent No.1 to take an
appropriate decision within 60 days thereof.
6. Meanwhile, till the final decision is taken by respondent No.1, the
services of the petitioner shall be protected and the same shall not be
terminated on the ground that they are contractual employees. If any adverse
order is passed, same shall not be given effect to for a period of four weeks.
7. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
[JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
Kiran Kawre
Checking your session…