-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.2415 OF 1997 The Executive Engineer, Implementation Wing, Town Planning, Pune & Ors. : Petitioners V/s. Dnyandeo Srirang Gawade & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.A.P.Vanarse, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the petitioners. Mr.Kiran S. Bapat for respondent nos.1 & 2. ... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2139 OF 2001 In WRIT PETITION NO.2415 OF 1997 Dnyandeo Srirang Gawade & Anr. : Applicants (Orig.Resp.nos.1 & 2) V/s. The Executive Engineer Implementation Wring, Town Planning, Pune & Ors. : Respondents (Orig.Petitioners) ... Mr.Kiran S. Bapat for the applicants. -: 2 :- Mr.A.P.Vanarse, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondents. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : MARCH 02, 2009. P.C. 1. The Executive Engineer, Implementation Wing, Town Planning, Pune, has challenged the order of the Industrial Court dated 8.1.1997 granting permanency to the respondent nos.1 and 2. Those respondents have filed Writ Petition No.6347 of 1997 claiming that the same order is not in accordance with law because it grants the status of permanency only from the date of the complaint and not rom the time they are said to have completed 240 days. The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the petitioners relied on a Division bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.14 of 2008 and other connected matters (The State of Maharashtra & anr. v. Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav) decided on 31.7.2008. In that case, the Division Bench set aside the grant of permanency to the respondents on the ground that they have failed to demonstrate that their appointments are made in accordance with the procedure prescribed for selection and they have further failed to establish that there exists sanctioned vacant posts. The Division Bench has laid down that in such a situation, it would be unjust to direct the appellant to grant permanency. Apparently, the impugned order in the present case suffers from failure to consider these two aspects which are crucial to the grant of permanency. The learned -: 3 :- Industrial Court has not considered which was the appropriate procedure for selection when the respondents were selected. There is the same pleading and evidence, but that has not been considered by the Industrial Court. Secondly, the Industrial Court has not considered whether the respondents occupy sanctioned posts. 2. Mr.Bapat, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2, submitted that on the basis of the seniority list, there were 14 sanctioned posts and there were only eleven appointments made at the relevant time. Of these appointments, according to the learned counsel, the eleventh appointee was, in fact, appointed subsequent to the respondent nos.1 and 2 and yet the respondent nos.1 and 2 are not shown as having been appointed in the sanctioned post. This aspect of the matter has also not been considered by the learned Industrial Court. Having regard to the findings of the learned Industrial Court and non-consideration of the two important aspects considered necessary for appointment for granting the relief of permanency as per the judgement of the Division Bench in The State of Maharashra and anr. v. Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav (supra), it is necessary to remand the matter for a fresh consideration to the Industrial Court. 3. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The -: 4 :- matter is remanded back to the Industrial Court for a fresh decision, in accordance with law. The Industrial Court is directed to decide the matter expeditiously and, in any case, not later than six months. There is no dispute that the respondent nos.1 and 2 have been in employment continuously. Therefore, there shall be status quo as to their employment, pending decision. The parties shall be at liberty to amend their pleadings and lead fresh evidence, in accordance with law. 4. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 5. In view of the decision in the Writ Petition, Civil Application no.2139 of 2001 is disposed of as infructuous. S.A. BOBDE, J.