1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9590 OF 2009 The Executive Engineer, Solapur Canal Division, Solapur )..Petitioners Vs Shri Kisan Maruti Jagtap )..Respondent ­­­­ Mr.Vijay D.Patil for the petitioners. Mr.Nitin Mulye for the respondent. ­­­­ Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 8th December, 2009. PC 1 This is a petition filed by the Executive Engineer, Solapur Canal Division, Solapur, impugning an order passed by the Industrial Court, Solapur on 11.8.2009 in a Complaint ULP No.121 of 2001. By the impugned judgment and order the Industrial Court has quashed an order dated 27.9.2001 by which recovery of excess payment was sought to be made and in which a de­facto reversion was sought to be recorded. In my view, no fault can be found with the reasoning given by the Industrial Court. It is seen that the appointment of the respondent was on the post of Laboratory Assistant. His service book indicated that he was a Laboratory Assistant. It is contended that the sanction for the post of helper to the Laboratory Assistant was sought. The sanction received was however to the post of Laboratory Assistant. That application however, was not on record. In such circumstances, treating the respondent as a helper to the Laboratory Assistant and seeking 2 recovery and a de­facto reversion without hearing him has been correctly held to be improper. No cause to interfere under limited jurisdiction of Article­227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, petition is summarily dismissed. Advocate for the petitioners states that the respondent has not been attending after filing the complaint. That is a separate cause of action and I am not required to deal with that aspect of the matter. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3