- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 5054 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. D. R. Chaudhari & Ors. ..Respondents Mrs. S. S. Bhende, AGP for the Petitioners. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : JANUARY 22, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned AGP for the petitioners. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 25-8-2005 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal whereby the Original Application No. 192 of 2004 and 609 of 2004 came to be allowed. The learned AGP has submitted that the respondents were appointed on daily wages and they had no right to get their services regularized in the establishment merely because they had completed 240 days continuous service. It is contended - 2 - that the direction given by the Tribunal to give the status of permanency to the respondents from the date each one of them completed 240 days continuous service in the establishment is inconsistent in law, since there were no clear vacancies nor these respondents were appointed on permanent post in clear vacancies. On the other hand, they were appointed on daily wages and had no right to get regularization, nor had right of permanency in the employment on completion of 240 days. 2. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned AGP. Perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal shows that the issue before the Tribunal was already concluded by the order passed in other other Original Applications which were confirmed by the High Court, and the Special Leave Petition against the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court. It will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant observations of the Tribunal reflected in paragraph 5 of the order of the Tribunal which reads thus- “There is no dispute that some of the colleagues have approached this Tribunal. Some or other Orders had been passed in the Original Application filed by them. The matter was carried before the High Court. It is also not in dispute that - 3 - the controversy in between the parties had been adjudicated by the Apex Court by passing an order on 23-7-2001 in the Special Leave Petition. The Writ Petition bearing No. 708 of 2005 disposed of by the High Court by an order dated 20-6-2005 refer to the observation made by the Apex Court on 23-7-2001. They are to the following effect. “In respect of the employees working in the Dairy Department, a Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 4756 of 1988 dated 20-4-1989 has been filed. The learned Counsel for the State Government conceded that after completion of 240 days of continuous service, the employees are entitled to be confirmed in the post held by him. Since this petition has been conceded and the view taken by the High Court is consistent with that stand, we do not think that there is any good reason for us to interfere with the order made by the High Court. The appeal stands dismissed accordingly.” In view of the above referred facts and circumstances, the conclusion recorded by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper. 3. Even otherwise the order of the Tribunal was rendered in - 4 - the year 2005 and the State Government has approached this Court in the year 2009. There are no cogent reasons for inordinate delay caused in approaching this Court and therefore, the petition also suffers from delay and laches and can be dismissed on this sole ground. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- [D. D. SINHA, J.] Sd/- [ A. A. SAYED, J.]