LPA 62/10 in WP 1629/91 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.62/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1629/1991 Nandkishor s/o Shriram Deo & four others. ...Appellants.. Versus Bhusawal Municipal Council, through its Chief Officer, Bhusawal & four others. ...Respondents... ..... Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate for appellant no.3 – Pramod Dnyandeo Patil. Shri G.V. Wani, Advocate for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri K.B. Choudhary, AGP for respondent nos.3 to 5. ..... CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE: 21.01.2011 LPA 62/10 in WP 1629/91 - 2 - PER COURT : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.1.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.1629/1991 filed by five petitioners. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by all the five petitioners also came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.3.2010. Out of the five petitioners, petitioner no.3 – Pramod Dnyandeo Patil alone filed application (Civil Application No.68/2010) seeking review of the order dated 23.3.2010 passed in the present Letters Patent Appeal. The review application came to be allowed on 15.10.2010 and the Letters Patent Appeal was restored to file insofar as Pramod Dnyandeo Patil is concerned. In the Civil Application No.68/2010 for review, respondent nos.1 & 2 had filed affidavit in September, 2010. In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit, respondent no.1 Somnath Bhau Shete, Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Bhusawal, on behalf of respondent nos.1 & 2 had stated thus: “I say that, however, in the year 1988, a resolution was passed to regularize services of certain persons, who were temporarily appointed and the then Chief Officer thought it fit to refer the said resolution bearing No.36 dt. 25/1/1988 to the Collector under Section 308(1) of the Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965. I say that, inadvertently the present applicant’s name was also included in the said list. I say that, the Collector, Jalgaon, LPA 62/10 in WP 1629/91 - 3 - at the relevant time in the year 1991 had declared the said resolution bearing No.36 dt.25/1/1988 as illegal, however, cautiously enough had mentioned names of 4 persons, who cannot be granted confirmation. The copy of said order passed by the Collector, Jalgaon, dt. 4/3/1991 is annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit R-1. I say that, the aforementioned order would clarify that in fact this applicant had been appointed on permanent basis way back in the year 1986 and, therefore, there was no occasion to induct his name again in the year 1988 showing him on temporary basis. I say that, in fact, at the relevant time, the typographical error has crept in and inadvertently the name of applicant was inducted in the said list.” 3] In view of the statements in made on affidavit, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2, on instructions, submits that respondent-Municipal Council will reinstate Pramod Dnyandeo Patil and allow him to resume duties from 1.2.2011. He submits that the respondent – Council will also give him continuity of service. Shri V.D. Hon, learned counsel for Pramod Dnyandeo Patil submits that he will not claim back wages, if any, from the respondent-Municipal Council. The statements made by learned counsel for the parties are accepted. In view thereof, the judgment and order dated 29.1.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1629/1991 and the order dated 23.3.2010 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.62/2010 render ineffective insofar as Pramod Dnyandeo Patil is LPA 62/10 in WP 1629/91 - 4 - concerned. It is needless to mention that Pramod Dnyandeo Patil will report for duty on 1.2.2011. The respondent – Municipal Council shall allow him to resume duties and shall pay him his salary regularly. Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of in terms of this order. (R.M. BORDE, J.) (D.B. BHOSALE, J.) ndk/2111115