IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.6123/2006 Pulgaon Cotton Mill Sanyukta Kamgar Karmachari Kruti Samiti ..vs.. State of Mah & others =================================== Mr. S.D. Khati, Advocate for petitioners Mr. Kothari, A.G.P. for respondent no.1 Mr. A.A. Naik, Advocate for respondent no.3 & 4 =================================== CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.R. DONGAONKAR, JJ. DATE:26.6.2008 P.C. Principal grievance made on behalf of the petitioners is that although the members of the petitioner Samiti were employees of the 'Closed Mill', they have been deprived of the benefit of the scheme regarding allotment of land free of cost upto 225 sq.ft. or offer of settlement amount therefor. For this reliance is placed on the communication dated 11.3.2003 sent by Cooperation & Textile Department, Mantralaya, addressed to the Managing Director, Maharashtra State Textile Corporation Limited. On perusal of the said communication it is amply clear that the scheme evolved and approved by the Cabinet is limited to those employees who were occupants of the chawls situated on the mill land. It is common ground and fairly accepted by counsel for the petitioner that none of the petitioners were occupants of the chawls situated in the mill land. If it is so, the petitioners cannot be the beneficiaries of the said scheme. Merely because the petitioners happened to be the employees of the closed textile mill, that by itself would not make them entitled to get any allotment of land free of cost. For, the scheme has been evolved to mitigate the problems of occupants of the chawls on the mill land. Suffice it to observe that the petitioners are ineligible to get any benefit of the said scheme, for that reason no writ can be issued against respondent no.3. Argument of the petitioner that some of the officers have been given benefit of the scheme, does not impress us. In any case, that can be no basis to extend the benefit to the petitioners who are ineligible as per the said scheme. In so far as the grievance made regarding allotment to the officers in the first place, specific details are not forthcoming and that fact has been emphatically denied by the respondent no.3. Moreover, the said persons who allegedly have been benefited or extended the benefit wrongly, have not been made party to the present petition. In any case, it is unnecessary to examine that aspect of the matter in detail as the limited relief claimed by the petitioner is to issue direction to respondent no.3 to extend benefit of the scheme in respect of allotment of land free of cost of 225 sq. ft. along with construction cost or in the alternative final settlement amount to the remaining 825 workers of the mill. That relief can not be granted. Hence rejected. JUDGE JUDGE smp