1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 502/2009 in Writ Petition No. 938/2009 Zilla Parishad Amravati thr. CEO and anr. ..vs.. Nandkishore Ramji Sagar & anr. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Kasat, Advocate for appellants. Mr. Khubalkar, A.G.P. for respondent no.2. CORAM: S. A. BOBDE & P. D. KODE, JJ DATED : 23 rd NOVEMBER, 2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is preferred against the order of learned Single Judge refusing to grant interim relief to the appellants. Learned Member, Industrial Court, granted benefits of permanency to the respondent-workman. The appellants have preferred a Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge. In the Writ Petition, the main contention of the appellants is that the benefit of permanency could not have been granted to the respondent-workman since the respondent was employed only for the purposes of a Scheme. We find that the order impugned in the present appeal is only an interim order. The learned Single Judge has refused to grant stay to the appellants because the Scheme is admittedly continuing and there is scope for employment of the respondent- workman. 2 3 We are of the opinion that the correctness of order granting permanency can be gone into in the writ petition. No illegality or perversity is pointed out in the order of the learned Single Judge in merely refusing to grant stay to the order in respect of the workman, who was in continuous employment since 1992 in respect of a scheme which is in existence since 1986. In any case, Mr.Kasat, the learned counsel for the appellants, fairly stated that the writ petition has arrived for final hearing before the learned Single Judge. Having regard to the over all circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE kahale