1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH WRIT PETITION NO. 3520 OF 2006 1. Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Nagpur. 2. Superintending Engineer, Nagpur Irrigation Circle, Nagpur. 3. Executive Engineer, Bagh Itiadoh Irrigation Division, Gondia. 4. Assistant Engineer (I), Itiadoh Irrigation Management, Sub-Division Arjuni (MOR), District – Bhandara. 5. Sectional Engineer, Itiadoh Irrigation Management, Section Wadegaon, Tahsil Arjuni (MOE), District – Bhandara. ... PETITIONERS Versus Baburao Maroti Dupare, aged about 44 years, r/o Village Soni, Post – Soni, Tahsil – Lakhandur, District – Bhandara. ... RESPONDENT 2 Shri D.B. Patel, AGP for the petitioners. Shri A.Y. Kapgate, Advocate for the respondent. ..... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DECEMBER 01, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard finally with the consent of Shri Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioners and Shri Kapgate, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The respondent – employee has moved Civil Application No. 8102 of 2008 on the ground that he is reaching the age of superannuation in March 2009. The application was considered on 21.11.2008 and was adjourned to today. Today Shri Kapgate, learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that in the case of Executive Engineer vs. Anant Yadao , reported at 1998 (3) Mh. L.J. 897, while considering the provisions of Kalelkar Award only, this Court has found Irrigation Department to be an “Industry”. He further states that similar challenge was disposed of against the department by this Court in Writ Petition 3 No. 4905 of 2005 and LPA No. 135 of 2006 filed against it, came to be dismissed on 04.09.2006. He points out that for showing continuous service of five years, as per provisions of Clause 28 of Kalelkar Settlement, the completion of 240 days of service in each calender year is not essential and that view taken by this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. M.V. Ghalge, reported at 1991 Mh. L.J. 1557, has been accepted even in the said LPA. 3. Shri Patel, learned AGP states that in view of the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Jaibir Singh , reported at 2005 (5) SSC 1, the issue about “industry” is receiving attention of larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further argues that continuation of 240 days service is essential as otherwise the employee cannot be presumed to be in continuous service. 4. In view of the judgment dated 04.09.2006 in LPA No. 135 of 2006 mentioned above, I am not in a position to accept these arguments. In Executive Engineer vs. Anant Yadao (supra), 4 the irrigation department is already held to be an industry. The application of Kalelkar Award as such to the department is not being disputed before me. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE ******* *GS.