(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 572 OF 1999 Shripad Prabhakar Aghor, Aged : 37 years, Occupation : Serving as a Mechanic in respondent no.2 Zilla Parishad, R/o. Osmanabad, District : Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. .. Respondents. ....................... W I T H WRIT PETITION NO. 1160 OF 1999 Dnyaneshwar Kisan Chavan, Aged : Major, Occupation : Serving as a mechanic in respondent no.2, Zilla Parishad, R/o. Osmanabad, District : Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. (2) versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. .. Respondents. ....................... W I T H WRIT PETITION NO. 1166 OF 1999 Shri Dattopant Vamanrao Patil, Aged : Major, Occupation : Service, helper in respondent no.2, Zilla Parishad, R/o. Osmanabad, District : Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. .. Respondents. ....................... (3) W I T H WRIT PETITION NO. 1168 OF 1999 Gajanan Dinkar Kulkarni, Age : Major, Occupation : Serving as a Mechanic in respondent no.2, Zilla Parishad, R/o. Osmanabad, District : Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. .. Respondents. ....................... W I T H WRIT PETITION NO. 1169 OF 1999 Kadri Sajjed Ahmed Pasha, Aged : Major, Occupation : Serving as a Mechanic in respondent no.2, Zilla Parishad, R/o. Osmanabad, District : Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus (4) 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. .. Respondents. ....................... W I T H WRIT PETITION NO. 1170 OF 1999 Shri Bhausaheb Uttamrao Nimbalkar, Age : Major, Occupation : Service, helper in respondent no.2, Zilla Parishad, R/o. Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. .. Respondents. ....................... W I T H WRIT PETITION NO. 1171 OF 1999 Hariba Laxman Kamble, Aged : Major, Occupation : Serving as a Mechanic in respondent no.2, Zilla Parishad, R/o. Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. (5) versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. .. Respondents. ....................... W I T H WRIT PETITION NO. 1189 OF 1999 Shri Ambarushi Shrirang Chavhan, Aged : Major, Occupation : Serving as a Mechanic in respondent no.2, Zilla Parishad, R/o. Osmanabad, District : Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. .. Respondents. *************** Mr. Vinesh Solshe, Advocate, holding for Mr. Vivek C. Solshe, Advocate, for the petitioners in all the petitions. (6) Mr. K.B. Chaudhary, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent no.1 in all the petitions. Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate, for respondent no.2 in all the petitions. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 11TH AUGUST 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) : 1. All these petitions involve a common question of fact and law, and as such, are decided together. 2. The petitioners impugn the order dated 31-7-1998, passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, thereby dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioners, and confirming the order dated 21st March 1998, passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. 3. The petitioners were working as daily rated employees with the Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. The State Government directed the respondent no.2 to appoint and regularize the services of the petitioners. Vide order dated (7) 3-10-1997, the petitioners' services were regularized with effect from 1-4-1987. Thereafter, again vide order dated 21st March 1998, the date of regularization was changed and the effect of regularization was given from 1-4-1989. The petitioners had assailed this order before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. However, the Additional Divisional Commissioner dismissed the appeals. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court. 4. Mr. Vinesh Solshe, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, relying on the Government Resolution dated 10th July 1974, contends that it is the policy of the Government to regularize the employees who were working on daily wages in the establishment, on completion of period of five years. The said resolution does not lay down any condition that the effect of regularization would be given only from the date of sanction of the post. According to him, in accordance with the said resolution, the petitioners were given deemed date of regularization as 1-4-1987, which was correct. But without issuing any notice to the petitioners, vide order dated 21st March 1998, the said date was again changed to 1-4-1989. According to him, this is per se illegal and not in consonance with the Government Resolution dated 10th July 1974. (8) 5. Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 / Zilla Parishad, contends that as per the order dated 21st March 1998, the date of regularization has been given from the sanction of the said post, which is in consonance with the Government policy and the Government Resolution dated 6th September 1990. According to him, no error has been committed by the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner while dismissing the appeals. 6. On perusal of the Government Resolution dated 10th July 1974, it is manifest that the Government had not laid down any rider, that the effect of regularization shall be given from the date of sanction of the post. The said resolution is clear and it lays down that on completion of the total service of five years, on work charged or daily rated, the persons / employees should be brought on regular establishment. The said resolution nowhere lays down any condition about the date of regularization to be commensurate with the sanction of the post. The similarly circumstanced persons were given the date of regularization on completion of their five years of service, vide order dated 1-4-1997. We find that the Zilla Parishad had rightly granted the deemed date vide order dated 3-10-1997, interpreting the Government Resolution dated 10th July 1974, correctly. (9) 7. In the result, the petitions are allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 31-7-1998, passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, thereby dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioners, so also, the impugned order dated 21-3-1998, passed by the respondent no. 2 / Zilla Parishad, are quashed and set aside. (ii) The respondents are directed to give deemed date of regularization to the petitioners, as per the order dated 3-10-1997 of the respondent / Zilla Parishad. (iii) Recovery, if any, made from the petitioners, on this count, be refunded to the petitioners. 8. Rule is made absolute on the above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp572etc