4731/2021, by which, the High Court has set aside the order of termination issued to respondent No 1 herein – original writ petitioner and directed the appellant – Zila Parishad to grant him the benefits as regular employee from the date of termination i.e., 15.07.2021, the Zila Parishad, Thane has preferred the present appeal.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/quashing-of-high-court-judgment-on-land-acquisition-proceedings/
Vide office order dated 24.05.2010, respondent No 1 – original writ petitioner was appointed temporarily and on contract basis as a driver for a period of two months and an agreement was executed between respondent No 1 and Health Officer, Primary Health Centre agreeing with the terms and conditions of the employment. Before that by order dated 15.07.2021 and in compliance with order dated 06.07.2021 of CEO, Zila Parishad, Thane, Taluka Health Department terminated the appointment of respondent No 1 and appointed an outsourcing agency.
By order dated 07.03.2022 while issuing the notice this Court stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. 4.1 It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the Hon’ble High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that the initial appointment of respondent was on contractual basis and till the tender process for providing services of the driver is completed. It is submitted that respondent
No 1 applied for the post of driver on temporary contract basis and his application for the said post was considered and the direction was given to appoint him on the post of driver only for temporary contract period.
It is submitted that though order dated 15.07.2021 was not specifically challenged before the High Court and it was also brought to the notice of the High Court by way of counter, without any challenge the Hon’ble High Court has set aside order dated 15.07.2021 and thereafter, has ordered regularization which is impermissible. 5.1
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/final-decision-and-disclosure-in-collegium-meetings/
It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, when respondent No 1 was continued in service for more than ten years the Hon’ble High Court has not committed any error in ordering regularization of his services. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment and order the High Court has directed the appellants – Zila Parishad to regularize the services of respondent In communication dated 29.03.2010, the District Health Officer, Zila Parishad communicated to the Block Development Officer as under: – “HEALTH, ZILLA PARISHAD, THANE Outward
No ZP/AV/Vehicle/Vshi/68 Health Department, Zilla Parishad, Thane Date: 29.03.2010
To, Block Development Officer Panchayat Samiti———(concerned) Subject:
In respect of appointment of driver on contractual basis.
Case Title: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD THANE Vs. SANTOSH TUKARAM TIWARE (2022 INSC 1229)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008856-008856 / 2022
