wp4352.11.odt 1 order IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.4352 OF 2011. Smt. Nalinibai Madhukar Vinchurkar, aged 54 years, Occupation : Asstt. Teacher, Education Department, Municipal Council, Gondia. ....PETITIONER. // VERSUS // 1. The Municipal Concil, Gondia, through its Chief Officer, 2. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3. Commissioner & Director, Municipal Administration, Directorate, Mumbai. 4. Regional Director, Municipal Administration, Nagpur. 5. District Collector, District : Gondia. ....RESPONDENTS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. B.M.Kharkate, Advocate for Petitioner. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: S.A.BOBDE AND M.N. GILANI, JJ. Date of Reserving the Order : 17.09.2011. Date of Pronouncing the order : 21.09.2011. ORDER ( Per : M.N.Gilani, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. wp4352.11.odt 2 order 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the communication dated 22.08.2006 issued by respondent No.3 to the respondent No.1 thereby limiting the services of the petitioner till she attains the age of 55 years. 3. The respondent No.1-Municipal Council, Gondia, appointed the petitioner on 24.07.1985 as Assistant Teacher in Education Department. Since then the petitioner is serving on the said post. The petitioner as well as other employees, who were appointed on daily wages, made representations to the respondent No.2 – State of Maharashtra for regularization of their services. In response to the various representations made by the petitioner and other similarly situated employees appointed on daily wages by the respondent No.1, the respondents No. 2 and 3 took policy decision and conveyed it to respondent No.1. This communication is to the effect that those employees, who had worked as daily wagers on the establishment of respondent No.1 during the period from 10.03.1993 to 27.03.2000 be continued in the same position till they attain the age of 55 years, however, this was subject to the conditions like availability of work and administrative exigencies. It is the contention of the petitioner that the employees on the establishment of the Government and local bodies are allowed to continue in service till they attain the age of 58 years. In case of Class-IV employees, the age of superannuation is 60 years. By applying this analogy it is submitted that the Government has no right to discriminate between the petitioners and the regular employees on the establishment of local bodies. It is, therefore, prayed that by issuing suitable direction the communication dated wp4352.11.odt 3 order 22.08.2006 may be quashed and may further be declared that the petitioner has right to continue in service till she attains the age of 60 years. 4. After considering the averments in the petition and the contents in the communication dated 22.08.2006 what can be gathered is as under : (i) The petitioner was appointed on daily wages ; (ii) Her appointment was purely casual in nature; (iii) The appointment was not against any sanctioned post ; (iv) The appointment was not in accordance with the recruitment rules in force or any policy decision ; (v) No particular scale was made applicable while making the appointment ; (vi) Such appointment was not in pursuance to the public advertisement. 5. What appears from above is that the appointment of the petitioner was not merely irregular but illegal. It seems that purely on humanitarian ground and considering the period of employment, on daily wages, the respondent No.2-State of Maharashtra decided to give some concession to the petitioner and other similarly situated employees working as daily wagers on the establishment of respondent No.1 – Municipal Council, Gondia and in sequel to this, the impugned communication was issued. This does not clothe the petitioner with any right to claim permanency for the simple reason that since inception her appointment was casual in nature and was on daily wages. It was never regularized in accordance with the rules of recruitment. Therefore, she continued to be an employee on daily wages. In that light of the matter she cannot claim any benefit of permanency. At this stage reference can usefully be made to the wp4352.11.odt 4 order recent decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 65. 6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition. The petition is dismissed in limine. JUDGE JUDGE RR..