HARIBHAU KESHVRAO PAITHANKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was working previously in the Soil Conservation Department has filed the instant writ petition claiming continuity of service on the basis of the Government Resolution dated august 1, 1972. According to the petitioner, he had worked uninterruptedly during the period of strike in 1970- However, his services were terminated by the order dated July 21, 1974. He was thereafter appointed in the irrigation Department by order dated May 31, 1976 pursuant to the Policy of the State Government to absorb the retrenched employees of the Agricultural Department.

(2.) IT is the grievance of the petitioner that although the similarly situated employees are given the benefit of continuity of service for the period from the date of their termination till the date of their absorption, the petitioner is deprived of such benefit. The learned counsel for the j petitioner has drawn our attention to the order passed by the Government in the case of one Shri M. N. Varhade whose services were terminated along with the petitioner as per the order dated July 21, 1974. According to them his case is exactly similar to the case of Shri Varhade. It appears from the order dated January 11, 1980 passed for condonation of break in service of said Shri Varhade that he had uninterruptedly worked during the strike period of 1970. He was originally prior to his termination working as an Agricultural Assistant in the Agricultural Department, but as an retrenched employee, he was later on absorbed as a Clerk in the sales Tax Office of the State Government.

(3.) THE plea raised on behalf of the State is that since the petitioner is not re-employed in the same Department, but he is employed in the irrigation Department, he is not entitled to continuity of service. There is no i merit in the above submission because the State Government has granted such benefit of continuity of service to Shri M. 'n. Varhade who was originally working in the Agricultural Department but was absorbed in the sales Tax Department of the State Government.