1 unreported IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1530 OF 1997. 1. Maharashtra Rajya Parisar Abhiyantriki Pani Purotha va Jal Nissaran Rekhachitra Tantrik Karmachari Sanghatna, thorugh its President Shri G.R.Patil, Age 53 years, Occ.Govt.Service, R/o Pachora Tq.Pachora, Dist.Jalgaon. 2. Vijay S/o Shripat Chauk, Age 53 years, Occ.Draftsman, R/o A.V.Patil Chal, Block No.9, Near Shama Complex, Ganpatinagar, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 3. Narayan S/o Gomaji Maraskolhe, Age 43 years, Occ.Head Draftsman, R/o 12/2, Oha Colony, Arani Road, 4. Shantaram S/o Ramchandra Waghmare, Age 32 years, Occ. Tracer,R/o Paras Railway Quarters, Akola, Dist.Akola. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The Maharashtra State Water Supply & Sewerage Board, IVth Floor, Express Towers, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 through its Member Secretary. 2. The Water Supply & Sanitation Department, State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. through its Chief Secretary. 2 3. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents. ... Mr.P.R.Patil, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.N.B.Patil, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.P.M.Bakshi, advocate for the Respondent No.1. ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 29.06.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai,J.) 1. The petitioners by the present petition has challenged the Government Resolution dated 7.12.1996 and 13.1.1997 and has further sought an order restraining the Respondents from changing any of the service conditions of Asstt.Draftsman, Draftsman and Head Draftsman. 2. The petitioner is an association of the Tracers'/Draftsmen working with the Respondent No.1 which is now named as "Maharashtra Jivan Pradhikaran". The petitioner Nos.2,3 and 4 are working as Draftsman, Head Draftsman and Tracer respectively. The members of the petitioner 3 Association were earlier employees in the Irrigation Department and on establishment of Respondent No.1 their services came to be absorbed with Respondent No.1. Contending that by the aforesaid Govt. Resolutions, their service conditions have been changed to their detriment the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Mr.Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that in view of the changed policy, the post of Head Draftsman has been abolished, whereas the promotional post of Asstt.Draftsman has also been abolished and as such members of the petitioner have been deprived the right for promotion. He therefore, submits that aforesaid Govt.Resolution which changes service conditions of the employees of Maharashtra Jivan Pradhikaran to their detrimental is not sustainable in law. Mr.Patil, learned counsel further submits that in view of sub-section (7) of Section 23-A of the Maharashtra Jeevan Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') the Respondent No.1 could not have changed the 4 service conditions of the employees of Respondent No.1 to their detrimental without prior sanction of the State Government. Mr.Patil, further placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in "T.R.Kapur and others Vs. State of Haryana and others" AIR 1987 Supreme Court 415(1). 4. Mr.Bakshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1, on the contrary submits that though in view of the change in staffing pattern, service of various tracers, draftsmen etc. are not required, in order to protect the service of the exiting employees, it has been decided that though the posts are abolished, the present incumbents would not be retrenched and only on their retirement, the vacancies occurring shall stand abolished. He further submits that the State Government has framed the Rules for filling up the posts of Draftsmen, Asstt.Draftsmen and said Rules have been adopted by Pradhikaran. He, therefore, submits that the petition is without any substance. 5 5. From the perusal of the aforesaid Govt. Resolution, it would reveal that vide the Govt. Resolution dated 6.12.1996, the Respondent No.1 has decided to restructure the entire organisation of the Respondent NO.1. The number of posts which would be required to be filled up at various places have also been given in the Appendix to the said Resolution. Vide the Govt. Resolution of December 1996, it was also decided to increase the number of Circle Offices i.e. Office of Superintending Engineer and the said Offices were to be established at the District Headquarters of each of the District. 6. It is thus clear, that though after restructuring, the number of posts of tracers etc. has been substantially reduced, the services of the members of the petitioner No.1 Union have been duly protected. In the affidavit-in-reply elaborate reasoning is given as to why the services of tracers, draftsmen are no more required. It has been stated that the entire work of implementing the scheme would be done through the contractors and as such the number of 6 tracers, draftsmen required would be substantially reduced. Though according to staff ing pattern the number of posts of tracers, draftsmen have been substantially reduced in order to protect the services of the existing employees, the Respondent No.1 has decided not to retrench them and only to abolish the posts. It is not the case of the petitioner that vide the impugned Govt. Resolution any of the service conditions like pay,allowances etc. have been reduced or changed to their detriment. Merely because the number of promotional posts is reduced can not be said to be a change in the condition of service to the detriment of employees. In any event, no data is placed on record to establish that the similarly situated persons working in the petitioner's original establishment have been put to more advantageous position. 7. In so far as reliance placed by Mr.Patil, on sub-section (7) of Section 23 of Maharashtra Jeevan Authority Act, 1976, in our view the reliance is wholly placed. Firstly, 7 nothing has been brought on record, as has already been held hereinabove, that the service conditions of the employees have been changed to their detrimental. Secondly, from the Resolution of 1996 itself it can clearly be seen that the State Government has authorised Respondent No.1 to do the necessary changes in staffing pattern on account of reorganisation of the Respondent No.1. Apart from that it can be seen that Section 66(1) of the said Act, permits the Respondent NO.l to make regulation consistent with the Act and the rules, for the administration of its affairs. Admittedly, the restructuring has been done with prior permission of the Government and as such in view of Section 66 the same would be squarely in consistent with the statutory scheme. 8. In so far as reliance placed by the learned counsel on the judgment of "T.R.Kapur and others Vs. State of Haryana and others" (supra) is concerned, the reliance is only misplaced. In the said case the concerned employees were initially working in the erstwhile State of 8 Punjab and their service conditions were governed by Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, P.W.D. (Irrigation Branch) Rules. On reorganisation of the State of Punjab their services came to be allotted to the cadre of Haryana State. By the impugned notification it was provided that for being eligible to the promotion of Executive Engineer a person must possess Bachelor's degree in Engineering. Noticing that the erstwhile service conditions only required a diploma in Engineering to be promoted as the Executive Engineers and that the State Reorganisation Act had protected the service conditions of the employees which were in existence prior to reorganisation of the State, the Apex Court held that the notification which changes the service conditions was not sustainable in law. Nothing is pointed out in the present petition as to how and in what manner the service conditions of the petitioners have been changed to their detriment. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the petition. The petition is, 9 therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp153097