Pune/Aurangabad : Bombay HC Feather Aurangabad “Dissatisfaction and disapproval” is expressed under Rule 6 of Maharashtra The Civil Services (Declaration of Small Family) Rules, 2005, which relaxed the small family (only two children) mandate for government employees and “requested” the state to remove the rule.
In its September 24 judgment, a bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge and SG Mehre asked the state to “make the 2005 rules apply equally to all employees of the government, state employees, local authorities and local bodies, If there is a laudable object of control. Population growth is to be achieved.”
The bench said, “We find such a rule not only unfair but also harmful because on one hand this country is grappling with the problem of population explosion and by introducing the 2005 rules, the state of Maharashtra has taken a step. Progressive steps to control the problem and encourage people to have a small family of only two children.”
The bench said, “On the other hand, these rules do not apply to the employees of local authorities, though similar provisions are applicable to persons who belong to Gram Panchayat, Municipality and District Council, by introducing the disqualification clause.”
“In this backdrop, Rule 6 allowing the government to relax the mandate of small households would be counter-productive. Therefore also, these rules need to be made applicable to the employees of local authorities like gram panchayat also,” the bench said.
The matter arose out of a petition filed by a peon of Karetkali gram panchayat in Shevgaon taluka of Ahmednagar district, challenging the show cause notice due on December 26, 2019, asking him to state that more than two Why should action not be initiated against him when he is a child? . A woman from the gram panchayat had on July 11, 2019, sought the removal of the peon from service – in view of a government notification dated March 28, 2005, which introduced the 2005 rules with probable effect – claiming that her Has three sons.
In the petition, the peon argued, Rule 5 of the 2005 Rules states that the rules cannot be applied retrospectively. He argued that he was appointed by a gram sevak in March 2004, i.e. before the rules came into force, and he was not a state employee, but a gram panchayat employee where the rules could not be enforced.
The HC had appointed advocate Ajay S Deshpande as amicus curiae (friend of the court) to give his opinion on the larger issue of applicability of the 2005 Rules and the issues raised by the petitioner.
Nyaya Mitra Deshpande submitted that though the employees of Gram Panchayat cannot be employees of the Government of Maharashtra, in view of the Panchayat Raj system introduced by the Constitutional Amendment, the principle of small family needs to be implemented at all levels and at all levels. should be applicable. Family. The HC accepted the views of the amicus curiae recommending the removal of Rule 6 to the government, it directed the competent authority to issue a show cause notice and proceed in accordance with law and decided whether the petitioner had rules are applicable.
In its September 24 judgment, a bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge and SG Mehre asked the state to “make the 2005 rules apply equally to all employees of the government, state employees, local authorities and local bodies, If there is a laudable object of control. Population growth is to be achieved.”
The bench said, “We find such a rule not only unfair but also harmful because on one hand this country is grappling with the problem of population explosion and by introducing the 2005 rules, the state of Maharashtra has taken a step. Progressive steps to control the problem and encourage people to have a small family of only two children.”
The bench said, “On the other hand, these rules do not apply to the employees of local authorities, though similar provisions are applicable to persons who belong to Gram Panchayat, Municipality and District Council, by introducing the disqualification clause.”
“In this backdrop, Rule 6 allowing the government to relax the mandate of small households would be counter-productive. Therefore also, these rules need to be made applicable to the employees of local authorities like gram panchayat also,” the bench said.
The matter arose out of a petition filed by a peon of Karetkali gram panchayat in Shevgaon taluka of Ahmednagar district, challenging the show cause notice due on December 26, 2019, asking him to state that more than two Why should action not be initiated against him when he is a child? . A woman from the gram panchayat had on July 11, 2019, sought the removal of the peon from service – in view of a government notification dated March 28, 2005, which introduced the 2005 rules with probable effect – claiming that her Has three sons.
In the petition, the peon argued, Rule 5 of the 2005 Rules states that the rules cannot be applied retrospectively. He argued that he was appointed by a gram sevak in March 2004, i.e. before the rules came into force, and he was not a state employee, but a gram panchayat employee where the rules could not be enforced.
The HC had appointed advocate Ajay S Deshpande as amicus curiae (friend of the court) to give his opinion on the larger issue of applicability of the 2005 Rules and the issues raised by the petitioner.
Nyaya Mitra Deshpande submitted that though the employees of Gram Panchayat cannot be employees of the Government of Maharashtra, in view of the Panchayat Raj system introduced by the Constitutional Amendment, the principle of small family needs to be implemented at all levels and at all levels. should be applicable. Family. The HC accepted the views of the amicus curiae recommending the removal of Rule 6 to the government, it directed the competent authority to issue a show cause notice and proceed in accordance with law and decided whether the petitioner had rules are applicable.
.