1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1913/2010 ( Deepak S/o Krushnarao Harsulkar -: VERSUS :- Sub-Divisional Officer, EGS (PW), Digras & others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 28, 2010. Heard Adv. Shri Jagdale for petitioner and learned A.G.P. for the respondent nos.1 and 2. Despite remand of matter by this Court petitioner did not adduce any evidence to prove his status. The Courts below have found that he is employee in Employment Guarantee Scheme (for short “E.G.S.”) and therefore rejected his U.L.P. complaint. Adv. Shri Jagdale invites attention to the U.L.P. complaint to show that there counsel for petitioner erroneously used word “E.G.S.” while describing respondent and that created confusion. He has invited attention to cross examination of witness Shri Arun Sufle – Sub-Divisional Officer to urge that his cross examination does not show that petitioner was working under E.G.S. Learned A.G.P. points out that there was specific contention that employee was under E.G.S. Even after remand petitioner has not brought on record that he was not working under E.G.S. Adv. Shri Jagdale has placed the 2 reliance on the provisions of Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977 to urge that procedure prescribed therein has not been followed and hence petitioner is not an employee of E.G.S. Whether procedure of Employment Guarantee Act is followed or not is a question of fact. The petitioner has not stated anything regarding that procedure. He has not cross examined Shri Sufle about compliance or non-compliance with those provisions. Even if it is presumed that some mistake is committed by his counsel still there was a specific contention in written statement. Hence burden was on petitioner to show that he was working in regular employment and not as E.G.S. The Courts below have therefore applied their mind rightly. No case is made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ petition is therefore dismissed. Adv. Shri Jagdale now states that petitioner has joined services in 1983 and is working till today and therefore interim order should be continued for a period of four weeks to take further steps. However, learned A.G.P. is opposing the request. Considering the long service rendered by petitioner, the interim order is continued till further period of four weeks and the same shall stand ceased automatically thereafter. Certified copy expedited. JUDGE Tambaskar.