1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2827 OF 2008 Dilip Sitaram Kadam. ...Petitioner. Vs. The Director, Social Forestry Department & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. A.V. Chatuphale for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Bharat D. Parakhe, Deputy Director, Social Forestry, Division Satara, present. ..... CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. December 5, 2008. P.C. The challenge in these proceedings is to an order passed by the Industrial Court on 12th October 2007 by which a Revision Application preferred by the Deputy Director in the Social Forestry Department against an order of reinstatement (without any back wages though with continuity of service) was allowed. As a result, the judgment of the Labour Court dated 25th June 1996 granting relief to the Petitioner has been set aside. 2 The Petitioner was appointed as a “Ropvan Kotwal” on 19th February 1986 under the Employment Guarantee Scheme on a temporary basis. The Petitioner continued to work as such on fixed wages from 1st May 1987 to 31st March 1988. The Petitioner worked as a daily wager from 2nd May 1988 to 31st March 1990. The services of the Petitioner were terminated with effect from 31st March 1990. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner was paid the retrenchment compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of service. The Petitioner moved the Labour Court at Sangli in a complaint of unfair labour practices and an interim order was passed in those proceedings on 9th April 1990 by which the Respondents were directed to continue the Petitioner. It would appear that in compliance with the order of the Labour Court, the Petitioner was reinstated as a daily wager from April 1990. The Labour Court allowed the complaint as noted earlier. The order of the Labour Court was set aside in revision. During the course of hearing of these proceedings, it was 3 urged on behalf of the Petitioner that his case was covered by the Government Resolutions dated 15th June 1995 and 22nd July 1997, copies of which have been annexed at Exhibits H and J to the petition. On 1st October 2008, the Respondents were directed to file an affidavit explaining whether the Petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid Government Resolutions. Accordingly, an affidavit has been filed by the Joint Director, Social Forestry Circle, Pune for and on behalf of the Respondents. The facts which have been adverted to in the earlier part of the judgment, relating to the employment of the Petitioner under the Employment Guarantee Scheme and the termination of his services, are culled out from the affidavit in reply which has been filed in these proceedings. Those facts are not in dispute. In paragraph 5 of the reply, it has been stated that the State Government issued a Resolution on 15th June 1995 and it has been stated that the GR was applicable to the Petitioner. However, it has been stated that at the material time, the case of the Petitioner was not considered. The affidavit in reply also states that a State Level Seniority List was prepared by the Directorate of Social Forestry on 27th December 2002 based on the 4 GRs dated 15th June 1995 and 22nd July 1997. The name of the Petitioner stands at Sr. No.20 of the Seniority List. It has been stated that a proposal for the creation of a supernumerary post to appoint the Petitioner was submitted to the Government by the Directorate of Social Forestry on 11th August 2004. The State Government in the Rural Development and Water Conservation Department turned down the proposal by a letter dated 4th October 2006. Therefore, it has been stated that the joint Seniority List in which the name of the Petitioner was included stands cancelled. The Learned AGP is unable to state on instructions before the Court, the reason why the proposal in respect of the Petitioner was turned down though he was covered by the terms of the GR dated 15th June 1995. In paragraph 7 of the petition, it has been submitted that another Forest Guard by the name of of R.G. Mhaske was identically situated since he had also suffered a termination order which was stayed by the Labour Court. In the reply, it has been admitted that Shri R.G. Mhaske was issued an appointment order on 4th September 1995 upon taking an undertaking from him that he was working under a plan scheme and that he had accepted the terms and conditions laid down in the GR 5 dated 15th June 1995. In fact, it would appear that the name of the Petitioner was also included in the common Seniority List. The Petitioner was, however, not granted the benefit of the GR for an inexplicable reason. Since the State Government formulated a scheme and in terms of the affidavit that has been filed before this Court, the Petitioner was covered thereunder, there is no reason or justification as to why his claim should not be considered. The appropriate direction to issue, in the circumstances of the case, would be, to direct the Competent Authority to consider the case of the Petitioner in terms of the GR dated 15th June 1995. This exercise shall be concluded within a period of three months from today and an intimation in respect thereof shall be furnished to the Petitioner. The Petition shall stand disposed of in these terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ...