IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.509 OF 2009. 1. The State of Maharashtra, through The District Foresh Officer, Department of Forest (NAP), Aurangabad. 2. The Range Forest Officer, Department of Forest (MAP), Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. PETITIONERS. (Ori. Respondents) VERSUS Shri Vijay Nanasahaheb Kinkor, age 33 years, occu. nil, r/o Near State Bank, Shrigonda, Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar. RESPONDENT. (Ori. Applicant). ... Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for petitioners. Shri D.U. Changade, Advocate for respondent. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 22nd September,2009. PER COURT: 1 Heard learned A.G.P. for the petitioners State and learned Counsel for the respondent. 2 Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties and taken up for hearing. 3 This petition is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 9th October, 2007 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Revision Application (ULP) No.17/2001 and the judgment and order dated 20th December, 2000 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) No.302 of 1992. 4 The learned A.G.P. appearing for the petitioners - State invited my attention to the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that already the respondent is reinstated in the service under normal scheme. He further invited my attention to paragraph 4 of the affidavit and submitted that even the respondent is placed in seniority list at serial no.135. He further submitted that since the respondent was not in service w.e.f. 1.6.1996 his claim for continuity in service can not be accepted. 5 The learned Counsel for respondent invited my attention to the judgments and orders passed by the Industrial Court and Labour Court and submitted that both the courts have concurrently held that the respondent is entitled for continuity in service. Therefore,he submitted that on the strength of the evidence and the rival contentions, both the courts below have arrived at proper conclusion. Therefore, he submitted that this Court may not interfere in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. He invited my attention to the findings of the courts below and submitted that so far as reinstatement of respondent is concerned, his grievance is satisfied. However, directions given by courts below to grant him continuity in service are required to be maintained. 6 After hearing learned A.G.P. for the petitioners - State and the learned Counsel for respondent and on perusal of the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Courts below, I am of the considered view that both the courts below, after proper appreciation of the evidence and the rival contentions of the parties, have arrived at a proper conclusion, thereby rejecting the claim of the respondent for back wages; However, granting continuity in service. It is not in dispute that the respondent was working in normal scheme and he was asked to shift from existing normal scheme to another scheme. The respondent denied to shift from existing normal scheme to another scheme rightly because he would have to lose his seniority in the normal scheme. Therefore, the contention of the learned A.G.P. that so far as continuity of service is concerned, this Court may not grant the said relief to the respondent is required to be rejected. The person who is appointed under a particular scheme, is eligible for further benefits like promotion etc. during existence of the said scheme. Certainly, the respondent was justified in refusing to shift from normal scheme to another scheme. The Courts below have appreciated the contentions of the petitioners as well as respondent and on the strength of the evidence, have reached to the finding that continuity in service is necessary. Both the Courts have taken a possible view and, therefore, no interference is called for. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] ... PLK/#