(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3675 OF 2010 Shaikh Anwar Shaikh Ismail Mehtar, Age : 44 years, Occupation : Part Time Sweeper, R/o. Nagar Deola, Taluka : Pachora, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Zillha Parishad, Jalgaon, District : Jalgaon (Through its Chief Officer). 2. District Animal Husbandry Officer, Zillha Parishad, Jalgaon, District : Jalgaon. 3. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Pachora, Taluka : Pachora, District : Jalgaon. 4. Veterinary Medical Officer, Nagar Deola, Taluka : Pachora, District : Jalgaon. 5. The State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary of Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. .. Respondents. (2) ....................... Mr. Sandesh R. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 to 4 (Absent). Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Additional Government Pleader, for respodent no.5. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. S.R. Patil, for the petitioner, and AGP, Mr. Kurundkar, for respondent no.5 / State. None for respondent nos.1 to 4. 2. The petitioner / employee was expressly appointed as part time employee in 1980 and on various occasions when permanent full time posts / workload became available, selection process was conducted by his employer. He participated in it and could not succeed. He filed ULP Complaint before Industrial Court, invoking Clause 4(c) of the Model Standing Orders read with Item 6 and Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra (3) Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (For short, "1971 Act"). The Industrial Court has found that there was no unfair labour practice. 3. Before this Court, the petitioner has relied upon a communication dated 17-2-2005 and the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that as per that decision, the petitioner is entitled to be regularized. He also places reliance on judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported at 2010(4) Mh.L.J. 96, in the case of Damodhar s/o. Mahipat Gawande and another Vs. Deputy Engineer, GSDA, Buldhana and others. 4. Perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, cited supra, shows that there employee was not a part time employee but he was performing full time work. Both petitioners there were working as Watchmen since 1971 / 1975 on daily wages and complaints were filed by them when they were on the verge of attaining age of retirement. The facts there do not show that any selection process was conducted and in that selection process they were found not entitled to retention or they were not selected. Here, the petitioner is already not selected on some occasions for regular employment. Hence this ruling has no application in the facts of the present case. (4) 5. The communication dated 17-2-2005 issued by the Deputy Secretary of the State of Maharashtra, Rural Development Department, shows that it is addressed to all Chief Executive Officers of all Zilla Parishads, except Zilla Parishad, Buldhana. Information has been called for from all Zilla Parishads to enable the State Government to take policy decision about absorption of such part time employees on Class-IV posts. No policy decision as yet has been taken. 6. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has pointed out that the petitioner has made number of representations but he has not been communicated anything. This grievance cannot be looked into by this Court and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the act of State Government in not taking any decision in this respect, the remedy lies elsewhere. I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity. 7. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp3675