1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2858 OF 2008 Smt.Jaybun Nalsaheb Shaikh. ...Petitioner vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra and others. ...Respondents. --- Mr.S.P.Saxena, for Petitioner. Mr.V.A.Sonpal, A.G.P. for Respondents. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 4th June, 2008. P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The claim of the petitioner before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal was that by the Government Resolution dated 16.5.2000 the services of the petitioner were regularised wrongly from 1.6.1995 and they should have been regularised from 2 earlier date. That contention has been rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the challenge to the Government Resolution dated 16.5.2000 has been raised after inordinate delay which has not been explained. 2. The learned Counsel submits that even assuming that the services of the petitioner have been rightly regularised from 1.6.1995, the services rendered by the petitioner as casual employee should have been considered as part of her services and she be given benefits in view of the provisions of Note 1 below Rule 57 of the Maharashtra Civil Services Pension Rules. The tribunal has declined that benefit also. Note 1 below Rule 57 of M.C.S. Pension Rules lays down that in cases of employees paid from contingencies who are subsequently brought on a regular pensionable establishment by conversion of their posts, one half of their previous continuous service shall be allowed to count for pension. Now it is obvious that for application of this Note the petitioner has to plead and make out a case that the petitioner's services were regularised by conversion of post from casual establishment to regular establishment. This case is neither pleaded nor 3 proved. In our opinion, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to count any part of her services for the purpose of pension under Rule 57 of the M.C.S. Pension Rules. We do not see any substance in the petition. The petition is therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.) ---