(Indira Banerjee and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.)
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8395/2021, decided on March 23, 2022
Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Solapur __________ Petitioner;
v.
Ashok Dhondiba Meher and Others __________________ Respondent.
With
SLP (C) No. 6084 of 2021
SLP (C) No. 11081 of 2021
SLP (C) No. 7319 of 2021
SLP (C) No. 7320 of 2021
SLP (C) No. 6152 of 2021
SLP (C) No. 6224 of 2021
SLP (C) No. 6663 of 2021
SLP (C) No. 6753 of 2021
SLP (C) No. 6092 of 2021
SLP (C) No. 6085 of 2021
SLP (C) No. 6155 of 2021
SLP (C) No. 6481 of 2021
SLP (C) No. 6530 of 2021
SLP (C) No. 11056 of 2021
SLP (C) No. 6615 of 2021
SLP (C) No. 11051 of 2021
SLP (C) No. 11494 of 2021
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8395/2021; SLP (C) No. 6084 of 2021; SLP (C) No. 11081 of 2021; SLP (C) No. 7319 of 2021; SLP (C) No. 7320 of 2021; SLP (C) No. 6152 of 2021; SLP (C) No. 6224 of 2021; SLP (C) No. 6663 of 2021; SLP (C) No. 6753 of 2021; SLP (C) No. 6092 of 2021; SLP (C) No. 6085 of 2021; SLP (C) No. 6155 of 2021; SLP (C) No. 6481 of 2021; SLP (C) No. 6530 of 2021; SLP (C) No. 11056 of 2021; SLP (C) No. 6615 of 2021; SLP (C) No. 11051 of 2021; and SLP (C) No. 11494 of 2021
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. In these petitions, the Zilla Parishad, Solapur and the Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur are before this Court assailing the common order dated 08.12.2020, 09.03.2021, 29.01.2021 and 01.03.2021 in various writ petitions as detailed below in the tabular form for easy reference,
| S. No. | Case No. | Party Name | Date of Impugned/Interim Order |
| 1. | SLP (C) No. 8395/2021 | The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Solapur v. Ashok Dhondiba Meher and Ors. | Impugned Judgment and interim Order dated 08.12.2020 in WP ST No. 92361/2020 |
| 2. | SLP (C) No. 6084/2021 | The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Solapur v. Vivekanand Mallesha Pattedar and Ors. | Impugned Judgment and interim Order dated 08.12.2020 in WP ST No. 92249/2020 |
| 3. | SLP (C) No. 11081/2021 | Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Kolhapur v. Mahdev Hindurav Patil and Ors. | Impugned Judgment and final Order dated 09.03.2021 in WP No. 784/2021 |
| 4. | SLP (C) No. 7319/2021 | The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Solapur v. Amol Vitthal Ohale and Ors. | Impugned Judgment and interim Order dated 29.01.2021 in WP ST No. 94001/2020 |
| 5. | SLP (C) No. 7320/2021 | Ors. The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Solapur v. Naushad Ismail Pathan and Ors. | Impugned Judgment and interim Order dated 29.01.2021 in WP ST No. 98003/2020 |
| 6. | SLP (C) No. 6152/2021 | The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Solapur v. Shrishail Devanand Hele and Ors. | Impugned Judgment and interim Order dated 08.12.2020 in WP ST No. 92773/2020 |
| 7. | SLP (C) No. 6224/2021 | The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Solapur v. Samadhan Baburao Kharche and Ors. | Impugned Judgment and interim Order dated 08.12.2020 in WP ST No. 95030/2020 |
| 8. | SLP (C) No. 6663/2021 | The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Solapur v. Nagendrayya Panchalingayya Hiremath and Ors. | Impugned Judgment and interim Order dated 08.12.2020 in WP ST No. 92250/2020 |
| 9. | SLP (C) No. 6753/2021 | The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Solapur v. Vikas M. Satpute and Ors. | Impugned Judgment and interim Order dated 08.12.2020 in WP ST No. 92683/2020 |
| 10. | SLP (C) No. 6092/2021 | The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Solapur v. Satyawan Ramchandra Thokale and Ors. | Impugned Judgment and interim Order dated 08.12.2020 in WP ST No. 92674/2020 |
| 11. | SLP (C) No. 6085/2021 | The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Solapur v. Karan Sanjay Lokhande and Ors. | Impugned Judgment and interim Order dated 08.12.2020 in WP ST No. 92232/2020 |
| 12. | SLP (C) No. 6155/2021 | The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Solapur v. Sachin Bhimrao Gore and Ors. | Impugned Judgment and Final Order dated 08.12.2020 in WP ST No. 92244/2020 |
| 13. | SLP (C) No. 6481/2021 | The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Solapur v. Netaji Bajrang Jadhav and Ors. | Impugned Judgment and interim Order dated 08.12.2020 in WP ST No. 92685/2020 |
| 14. | SLP (C) No. 6530/2021 | The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Solapur v. Siddeshwar Mahadeo Randive and Ors. | Impugned Judgment and interim Order dated 08.12.2020 in WP ST No. 92238/2020 |
| 15. | SLP (C) No. 11056/2021 | Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Kolhapur v. Vasant Pandurang Patil and Ors. | (Judgment and final Order dated 01.03.2021) in WP ST No. 99852/2020 |
| 16. | SLP (C) No. 6615/2021 | The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Solapur v. Ganesh Shantappa Warshetti and Ors. | Impugned Judgment and interim Order dated 08.12.2020 in WP ST No. 92465/2020 |
| 17. | SLP (C) No. 11051/2021 | Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Kolhapur v. Shrikant Shivaji Kumbhar and Ors. | Judgment and final Order dated 09.03.2021 in WP ST No. 1580/2021 |
| 18. | SLP (C) No. 11494/2021 | Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur v. Dagdu Pandurang Powar and Ors. | Judgment and final Order dated 09.03.2021 in WP ST No. 427/2021 |
2. For the purpose of narration, the case as stated in SLP (C) No. 8395/2021 is taken as the lead case. The issue however is common in all these cases.
3. The private respondents in all these cases are engaged as ambulance drivers. The ambulance vehicles belong to the Public Health Centres (for short ‘PHC’) situate within the administration of Zilla Parishad which are the petitioners herein. The undisputed position is that the Zilla Parishad through the health department had floated tender intimation seeking supply of contractual drivers from the licensed contractors so as to engage the said drivers on the government vehicles of the primary health centres in the district. Pursuant thereto, the tender process was finalized. The engagement of the contractors was based on the terms and conditions attached to the e-tender intimation. The private respondents herein were thus engaged for the benefit of rendering public health to the citizens but were employed through the contractors. The onus for payment of salary to the said drivers, in the tender process was imposed on the contractor which would thereafter be reimbursed by the Zilla Parishad pursuant to the funds being made available by the government.
4. When this was the position, certain drivers who were thus engaged in Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur had approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench at Nagpur through Writ Petition No. 2247/2014, Dhiraj S. Wankhade v. The Zilla Parishad Chandrapur contending that the contractual drivers had been engaged to carry out the work of the establishment, namely the Zilla Parishad and they having completed more than 10 years of continuous service from the year 2004-2005, they are entitled to regularization of their services. The Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur which was the respondent in the said case had opposed the regularization.
5. The learned Division Bench of the High Court through its judgment dated 20.11.2019 had kept in view the decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) 2006 (4) SCC 1, State of Orissa v. Mamta Mohanty 2011 AIR SCW 1332, Renu v. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari 2014 (2) Scale 262 and State of Jharkhand v. Kamal Prasad (2014) 7 SCC 223 and arrived at the conclusion that the relief of regularization sought for by the petitioners therein cannot be acceded to. However, the learned Division Bench had taken note of the nature of employment of the drivers and in that view had kept in perspective the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148 with specific reference to para 58 therein which read as hereunder:
“58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Anyone who is compelled to work at a lesser wage does not do so voluntarily. He does so to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self-respect and dignity, at the cost of his self-worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows that his dependants would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position, Undoubtedly the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.”
6. In that light, keeping in view the concept of a welfare state and taking note that the fruits of labour cannot be denied to the employee who performs the same work as that of another employee and in the instant case, the drivers who were directly employed under the government are paid better wages, the learned Division Bench was of the view that as considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) the petitioners therein should at least be extended the benefit of the wages paid at the minimum of the pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale) extended to regular employees holding the same post.
7. In that background, keeping in view that this Court had discouraged regularization of service, but had however protected the interest of employees with regard to the emoluments, to an extent and also keeping in perspective that the learned Division Bench of Nagpur Bench had extended such benefit to the similarly placed ambulance drivers, the High Court in the instant case applied the said judgment in the case of Dhiraj S Wankhade (supra) and directed that the private respondents herein who were the petitioners in the writ petitions which were the subject matter of consideration relating to the instant case, be paid wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (at the lowest grade), in the regular pay-scale extended to the regular employees holding the same post with effect from the date of the petition.
8. The learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad and the State of Maharashtra while assailing the judgment would contend that the private respondents are not directly employed under the Zilla Parishad or the State either as contract employees or in any other capacity. On the other hand, they are the employees of the contractor who has been engaged in accordance with law after floating tender intimation. It is therefore contended that there being no privity of contract, the private respondents cannot be equated with the employees directly employed under the Zilla Parishad or the State Government for the purpose of parity in pay. In that view, it is contended that the judgment passed by the High Court is not justified.
9. The learned counsel for the private respondents on the other hand would contend that the High Court itself has been conscious of the limitations imposed by this Court in the matter of regularization or granting parity in pay. In that view, the High Court having applied its mind to the fact situation has taken note of the earlier decision of a coordinate bench wherein all aspects had been adverted to and the limited relief as permissible in law was granted and it is in that circumstance on applying the said order which is based on the decision of this Court to provide adequate pay under a welfare State a limited relief was granted. When in that circumstance, the limited relief is granted is within the parameters of law, the same will not call for any interference is the submission.
10. In the light of the above, we have taken note of the circumstance in which the benefit has been extended by the High Court to the private respondents herein. The learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad and the State government placed reliance on the decision of Uma Devi (3) (supra) with specific reference to para 55 even on the aspect relating to the benefit of the wages that has been granted by the High Court. In that regard, a perusal of the decisions cited would indicate that this Court has held that the direction issued by the High Court in the case which was the subject matter of consideration in Uma Devi (3) (supra) to persons engaged on daily wages, to be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service is not sustainable. The said situation has not arisen in the instant case, inasmuch as, such parity of salary and allowances has not been ordered to be paid in the instant case. The decision in T.M. Sampath v. Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources (2015) 5 SCC 333 relied on by the learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad with specific reference to para 16 and 17 thereof will not also be of assistance. In the said case, the issue was with regard to the parity between the employees of NWDA and Central Government employees wherein it was held that the employees of NWDA cannot be held on par with their counterparts in the Central Government with reference to the General Financial Rules, which is not the situation in the present case. Further, the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Bhagwan Civil Appeal No. 7682-7684 of 2021 dated 10.01.2022 relied upon by the learned counsel for the State is not of any assistance in the instant case since the issue essentially considered therein was with regard to the pensionary benefits which was claimed by the employees of Water and Land Management Institute which was held against the employees who claimed such benefit.
11. In the above circumstance, it is noticed that in the present facts the only relief granted by the High Court to the private respondents herein is to be paid the wages at the minimum of the pay-scale at the lowest grade, in the regular pay-scale extended to the regular employees holding the same post. The said benefit ordered to be extended is in tune with the observations of this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra). Further, in the instant facts what cannot be overlooked is also that the private respondents though employed through the contractors are discharging the onerous duties of driving the ambulance which is operated to provide the benefit of public health to the citizens in the PHC’s under the Zilla Parishad which in turn is for discharging the obligation of the State. Therefore, in such circumstances, the minimum relief that has been granted by the High Court would not call for interference. We at this juncture also take note of the fact that the judgment dated 20.11.2019 passed by the coordinate bench of the High Court in Dhiraj S. Wankhade (supra), relied upon by the High Court in the instant case had been assailed before this Court in a Special Leave Petition (Civil) bearing Diary No. 12195/2020. However, the Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed by this Court on 22.02.2021.
12. Accordingly, the above petitions, being devoid of merit stand dismissed.
13. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8395/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-12-2020 in WPST No. 92361/2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature At Bombay)
Chief Executive Officer.….Petitioner(s)
v.
Ashok Dhondiba Meher & Ors.….Respondent(s)
(Before Indira Banerjee and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 6084/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 53057/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 53059/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 11081/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 84653/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 84654/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 7319/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 65467/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 65468/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 7320/2021 (IX)
SLP(C) No. 6152/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 53896/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 53898/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6224/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 54885/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 54886/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6663/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 58949/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 58950/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6753/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 59941/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 59942/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6092/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 53176/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 53188/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6085/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 53076/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 53078/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 53076/2021 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
IA No. 53078/2021 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6155/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 53875/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 53877/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6481/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 56942/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 56944/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6530/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 57762/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 57763/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 11056/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 84294/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 84298/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6615/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 58524/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 58525/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 58524/2021 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
IA No. 58525/2021 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 11051/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 84231/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 84233/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 11494/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 88042/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 88046/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 23-03-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before Indira Banerjee and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
15. The special leave petitions are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
16. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
REVISED
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8395/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-12-2020 in WPST No. 92361/2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature At Bombay)
Chief Executive Officer.….Petitioner(s)
v.
Ashok Dhondiba Meher & Ors.….Respondent(s)
(Before Indira Banerjee and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 6084/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 53057/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 53059/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 11081/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 84653/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 84654/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 7319/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 65467/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 65468/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 7320/2021 (IX)
SLP(C) No. 6152/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 53896/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 53898/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6224/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 54885/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 54886/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6663/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 58949/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 58950/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6753/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 59941/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 59942/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6092/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 53176/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 53188/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6085/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 53076/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 53078/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 53076/2021 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
IA No. 53078/2021 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6155/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 53875/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 53877/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6481/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 56942/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 56944/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6530/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 57762/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 57763/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 11056/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 84294/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 84298/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6615/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 58524/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 58525/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 58524/2021 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
IA No. 58525/2021 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 11051/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 84231/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 84233/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 11494/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 88042/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 88046/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 23-03-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before Indira Banerjee and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
17. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
18. The special leave petitions are dismissed.
19. Reasons to follow.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8395/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-12-2020 in WPST No. 92361/2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay)
Chief Executive Officer.….Petitioner(s)
v.
Ashok Dhondiba Meher & Ors.….Respondent(s)
(Before Indira Banerjee and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 6084/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 53057/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 53059/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 11081/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 84653/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 84654/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 7319/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 65467/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 65468/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 7320/2021 (IX)
SLP(C) No. 6152/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 53896/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 53898/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6224/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 54885/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 54886/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6663/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 58949/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 58950/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6753/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 59941/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 59942/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6092/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 53176/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 53188/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6085/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 53076/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 53078/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 53076/2021 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
IA No. 53078/2021 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6155/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 53875/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 53877/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6481/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 56942/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 56944/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6530/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 57762/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 57763/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 11056/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 84294/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 84298/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 6615/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 58524/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 58525/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 58524/2021 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
IA No. 58525/2021 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 11051/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 84231/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 84233/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 11494/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 88042/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 88046/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 23-03-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before Indira Banerjee and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
20. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
21. The special leave petitions are dismissed.
22. Reasons to follow.
———
