1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1772 OF 2002 Sunil Mahadeo Chalke & ors ..Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ..Respondents Mr.P.M.Havnur, Advocate, for the petitioners Ms.S.M.Dandekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State CORAM : P. B. MAJMUDAR R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 26TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. . The petitioners are working as Peons and Clerks with the respondent No.2. As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, the petitioners are serving since a considerable length of time. The petitioner No.1 was appointed as Peon on 7th October, 1992, the petitioner No.2 was appointed as Clerk on 2nd August, 1993, the petitioner No.3 was appointed as Peon 1st January, 1994 and the petitioner No.4 was appointed as Peon 2 2nd August, 1996. Out of four petitioners, three are Clerks and one is a Peon. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that since their appointment they are continued on a fixed Salary and benefit of permanency is not given to them though, they are serving since last many years. It is submitted that the petitioners are serving sincerely and satisfactorily and their services are required for the effective functioning of the respondent No.2. By way of this Writ Petition, it is prayed that directions may be issued to the respondent No.2 to give permanency benefits to the petitioners and pay them appropriate Pay Scale. In our view, the grievance of the petitioners is justified to some extent as the petitioners are serving on a fixed Pay Scale since last many years and their claim for regularisation has not been considered one way or other. By this time, the petitioner No.1, is serving as Clerk for more than 18 years and the 3 other petitioners are also serving since long, considering the said fact we direct the petitioners to make appropriate representation to the respondent No.2 pointing out the factual data as regards their employment. Such representation to be made within a period of three weeks from today. 3. On receipt of such representation, the respondent No.2 may take appropriate decision and while taking the decision we are sure that the factum regarding length of service put in by the petitioners will also be taken into consideration. The requirement of the respondent No.2 Board/Committee would also be taken into consideration while deciding the petitioners' representation. An appropriate decision may be taken by the respondents taking into consideration the relevant facts. The said decision may be taken within a period of two months from the receipt of the representation. The decision to be communicated to the petitioners. Subject to what 4 is stated above, the above Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. ( R.M.SAVANT. J.) ( P. B. MAJMUDAR, J.)