1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 4934 of 2008. Mah. Rajya Hakero Sahayyak Sanghatna. v. The State of Mah & others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri N.R. Saboo, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram : B.H. Marlapalle and A.H. Joshi, JJ. Dated : 20th NOVEMBER, 2008. Heard Mr. Saboo, the Learned Counsel for the petitioners Sanghatana which claims to be the registered Trade Union, and represents the persons who are working as Seva Khandit Muster Assistants in the District of Bhandara, Gondia and Nagpur etc. The petitioner had approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No.410 of 2005, and the same came to be disposed off by the Tribunal on 15-7-2008. It was prayed by the petitioner that the Government should be directed to consider the cases of its members for absorption and grant of consequential relief 2 including the benefit of seniority and increments etc., within a reasonable period. The Tribunal in the impugned order stated as under: 'On careful consideration of the matter, we are of the opinion that no such directions could be given for absorption and grant of consequential relief including benefit of seniority, increments etc. because ultimately it is for the Government to take Policy Decision on its own merits according to law and procedure applicable in this regard. We refrain from making any observations on merit for consideration of the cases of the Mustering Assistant who do not fall within the parameters of the Government Resolutions dated 1.12.1995 and 24-4-1999. In such situation, we do not find any merit in this Original Application and hence, the same is disposed of.” [Quoted from page 101 & 102 of Writ Petition Paper Book] Mr. Saboo, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner Union has invited our attention to various letters issued from the Planning Department and more particularly, the letter dated 12-1-2004, 30-1-2004, 21-6-2004 and 14-7-2008 etc. It appears from all this 3 correspondence that the Planning Department had undertaken the work of collecting data regarding muster assistants who had break in service and finally, by the communication dated 14-7-2008 addressed to Shri Kumbhrao Chaudhary, Secretary of the petitioner Union, it has been informed that the issue regarding absorption of Seva Khandit Muster Assistants is under consideration of the State Government, and the same proposal is likely to be placed before the cabinet meeting. It is, therefore, clear that as of now the State Government has not taken any policy decision regarding the absorption of Muster Assistants whom the petitioner represents, and therefore, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in the impugned Order. Petition is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE JUDGE //Muley//.