1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3446 OF 2009 Mrs Kalpana Ratnaparkhi and anr. ...Petitioners v/s State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents Mr Sanjay Kshirsagar for Petitioners. Mr V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND K.K. TATED JJ. DATE : 17TH NOVEMBER 2009. 2 P.C. :- 1] By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai rejecting the Original Application filed by the petitioners. The relevant facts are that the petitioners were appointed as Music Teachers on temporary basis in the year 1986. They continued to work on that basis. In the year 1999, a Government Resolution was issued regularising their services. Thereafter, Original Application was filed before the MAT claiming that the services put up by them before the Government Resolution of 1999 was issued should be counted for the purpose of working out pensionable service. That request has been rejected by the MAT. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that the MAT should have followed its order in the case of Kadgaonkar where it was held that the service rendered by Kadgaonkar right from year 1986 was regular and according to the learned counsel, if the service rendered by Kadgaonkar were regular, the 3 benefit of counting service before regularisation for the purpose of counting pensionable service could not have been denied. We have head the learned counsel for both the sides. We have gone through the record. We find that unlike the petitioners, Kadgaonkar s service was terminated in the year 1994. That order was challenged before the MAT and it was held that the appointment of Kadgaonkar was regular and the Government was not justified in terminating the service of Kadgaonkar. The question whether the service rendered by Kadgaonkar is to be counted for the purpose of pensionable service was not decided by the Tribunal in that case. If according to the petitioners, the services rendered by them from 1986 were regular services, they ought to have challenged the Government Resolution of 1999 which regularised their services only from 1998. The petitioners having accepted Government Resolution of 1999, could not have turned around and claimed that the services rendered by them before 1999 should also be counted for pensionable service. In our view, the view 4 taken by the MAT is a possible view on the basis of material on record and therefore, there is no room for this Court to interfere with the order impugned in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Constitution of India. Petition has no substance, it is rejected. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE K.K. TATED )