1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.398 of 2009 In Writ Petition No.4016 of 2000 (D) (Ratan s/o Buddha Alam v. State of Maharashtra, through Sub Divisional Engineer, Jal Sampada Division No.6, Bramhapuri, District Chandrapur) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for Appellant. Smt. T.D. Khade, AGP for Respondent. Coram : A.H. Joshi and A.R. Joshi, JJ. Dated : 30 th November, 2009 1. Heard Shri P.D. Meghe, learned Advocate for the appellant, and Smt. T.D. Khade, learned AGP for the respondent. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the employer’s writ petition. The grounds putforth can be summarized as under : (i) The muster rolls for the period from June to November 1990 were not produced. (ii) The seniority list, copy whereof is at pages 90 and 91 of the petition, shows that the services of those workmen, who were juniors to the appellant, were not terminated. 2 3. Perused oral evidence of the workman - the present appellant. Deposition does not indicate that his grievance was about non-observance of “Last come first go”. What is stated by him is that “I was not given notice nor paid notice pay in lieu of it. I was not shown seniority list. I was not paid retrenchment compensation amount at that time. After my termination, new persons were engaged by the party No.1. My signature was not obtained while making payment of salary of Rs.500/- on any document. I was paid wages on blank paper.” This version inter alia consists of a statement that new persons were engaged after terminating the services of the appellant. Any suggestion in support of his statement made in examination-in-chief was not given to the employer’s witness. 4. The employer had brought the muster rolls for the period for which the appellant was working and placed the same on record. Admittedly any notice of production of copies of muster rolls for the period from June to November 1990 was not given. It is not explained as to why the notice for production of the copies of muster rolls for the aforesaid period was not given. 5. This Court finds that the list of workmen given in the seniority list at page 90 of the petition pertains to those workmen, who were taken on ‘Work Charge Establishment’ and the date shown in column no.6 therein is the date when those workers were taken on said ‘Work Charge Establishment’, meaning thereby that they had completed five years of service as casual labourers. In any case, these workers are admittedly not juniors to the appellant. 3 6. While reliance is placed on page 91 of the petition, it was not the appellant’s case that juniors to him, who were below serial no.32, are retained in the employment. The appellant does not amongst them who are retained in the employment in supersession of his claim. 7. Oral argument now advanced before this Court that juniors are retained in employment is not proved by the appellant. 8. In these premises, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is not shown to be contrary to record or otherwise in breach of the provisions of law. 9. The appeal does not merit any interference and it is, therefore, dismissed. Judge. Judge. pdl