Ritika
Nagpur. A writ petition was filed in the High Court on behalf of Shyambihari Mishra, working in the Health Department of the Municipal Corporation, citing non-availability of advantages as per the Assured Career Progression Scheme. After prolonged arguments from each the sides on this, Justice Atul Chandurkar and Justice Urmila Joshi stamped the service prescribed by the Municipal Corporation citing the petitioner not being entitled to consequential advantages. On behalf of the petitioner M.D. On behalf of Ramteke and MNP, Mr. SN Bhattad argued. A letter was despatched to the petitioner on 15 December 2018 by the Health Department of Municipal Corporation. In which info was given about the petitioner being the beneficiary of the first Assured Career Progression Scheme due to the completion of 12 years of service. The petition was filed difficult this correspondence.
Daily fee service began in 1985
The court docket mentioned in the judgment that on February 12, 1985, the petitioner was appointed as a compounder on the strains of every day fee. Due to non-regularization of his providers, the petitioner had filed a declare in the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court had accredited its regularization. Challenging which the Municipality filed a writ petition in the 12 months 2003. While permitting this writ petition, the High Court had given some orders. In which in accordance to the basic precedence checklist, the petitioner was requested to repair the service interval of 240 days. After this date, orders got to repair the pension and gratuity. Even on this order, the petitioner had clearly talked about that he was not entitled to the resultant profit. The petitioner had filed a contempt petition citing non-compliance of these orders. On 2 February 2012, the court docket dismissed the contempt petition.
Manpa did mistaken dedication
The petitioner was of the view that he was proven in the providers from 29 April 1991. According to which 12 years of providers are entitled to the profit of the second Assured Career Progression Scheme. But the date mounted for fixing his providers was wrongly decided by the Municipal Corporation. Opposing this argument on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, it was mentioned that the 2003 High Court order clearly mentions not being entitled to the consequential profit after the identify is included in the precedence checklist. Hence the choice was taken on this foundation. After the listening to, the court docket issued the mentioned order.
