1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4781/2010 [Dinesh Shriram Hambarde and others .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Shri N.R. Saboo, Advocate for the petitioners, Shri M.K. Pathan, Advocate for respondent no.2, Shri S.W. Sambre, Advocate for respondent nos.3, 4 and 5. .......... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 21, 2011. Heard. After hearing respective counsel and after perusal of affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2, we see that as on today condition no.8 imposed by Municipal Commissioner in order dated 1.2.2005 has not been cancelled or modified. Shri Pathan and Shri Sambre learned respective counsel have attempted to invite attention to Government Resolution dated 15.2.1977 to show that such work-charged service needs to be taken into account for counting seniority to avoid any injustice to the respondents, who have put in long service in work-charge establishment. 2 Shri Sambre states that in the seniority list, the petitioners are shown as seniors to these respondents. He is relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others .vrs. V. Umadevi and others, AIR 2006 SC 1806 to urge that such ad-hoc service cannot be looked into. During argument, Shri Sambre has also invited attention to CAW No.3019/2011 particularly order dated 1.10.2011 annexed with it to contend that because of said ad-hoc service, further benefit of Assured Promotion Scheme and consequential arrears is being conferred upon the respondents. Both the learned counsel for the respondents state that they are not aware of any such development as they have received copy of application recently and are still awaiting instructions. We do not find it necessary to go into all these disputed questions. Respondent no.2 is a responsible government officer working at Municipal Corporation at Amravati and he has to take appropriate decision in the matter as per law in public interest. We, therefore, direct him to look into grievance of the petitioners as also respondent nos.3, 4 and 5, and thereafter proceed to take further appropriate steps in the matter. Respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation, Amravati shall consider the 3 grievance of the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today and pass appropriate order in the matter in any case by 31.12.2011. The petitioners and respondent nos.3 to 5 are permitted to file their appropriate representations before the Municipal Corporation, Amravati within a period of one week from today. Needless to mention that all rival contentions are kept open for further consideration as and when occasion arises. With this, we dispose of the petition. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande