1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5417 OF 2008 Shri Avinash Shivalal Sarvade .. Petitioner Versus The Dean, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Sarvopchar Rugnalaya, Solapur & others .. Respondent Mr. A. K. Suryawanshi, for the Petitioner Mr. A. H. Palekar AGP, AGP for the Respondents 1 & 2 CORAM: J. N. PATEL, & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED: 20th April, 2009 P. C. 1. Heard. 2. In this petition, illegal termination from service is sought to be agitated by the petitioner. The same prayer was turned down by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) in Original Application No. 762 of 2007 vide order dated 26.11.2007, dismissing the application. 3. Petitioner has joined services with Respondent Hospital as Sweeper, as a “Badli worker” on daily wages. It is contended that on completion of 240 days continuous service, he was not made permanent. It is submitted that as per the Order dated 23rd October, 1993, passed by the MAT in Original Application No. 879 of 1993, services of the petitioner, alongwith other applicants 2 in the said OA, were protected. Thereafter, pursuant to the said order, the Respondent Hospital prepared a Seniority list and granted permanency to the other employees, except the petitioner as the name of the petitioner was dropped from the list. The petitioner, then preferred a Complaint before the Industrial Court, Solapur under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, bearing Complaint (ULP) No. 88 of 2001 praying permanency with benefits of permanency. The said complaint was dismissed by the Industrial Court on 22nd August, 2007. Therefore, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7672 of 2007 before this Court. The said petition was disposed of directing the petitioner either to approach Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal or to the Labour Court to agitate the issue of termination of service during the pendancy of the Complaint. The Petitioner chose to approach the MAT and agitated his illegal termination and also sought permanency. However, the said Original Application bearing OA No. 762 of 2007 was dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2007. Hence this petition. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has served with the respondents nearly for about 15 years and considering his seniority he should have been made permanent in the service. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the status of the petitioner as adhoc or badli throughout the period of his service. Appointment of the petitioner was adhock or Badli. Hence, the petitioner cannot be considered for regularization or he cannot claim permanency in service as he was employed with the 3 respondent No.1, which is a Government Hospital. Considering the said status of the petitioner, on completion of 240 days continuous service, benefits of permanency cannot be given to him. In the decision given by the Hon'ble Suprme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Umadevi, reproted in 2006 (4) SCC 1, the said principle is settled by the full Bench and we follow the same. As such, we do not find any illegality or any fault in the order passed by the MAT. Hence, the petitioner has no case on merit. In the result, the petition stands dismissed. ( MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (J. N. PATEL, J.) jpc/-