1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.996 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3013 OF 2009. MAHABEEJ KARMACHARI SANGHATNA BY SHRI SIDHARTH GANPATRAO NIKOSE C/O.SHRI V.N.GHARDE, BORUNDIA NAGAR, YAVATMAL (CAMP AKOLA) .. APPLICANT. // VERSUS // M.S.SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAHABEEJ BHAWAN, AKOLA. .. RESPONDENT. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri B.M.Khan, Advocate for Applicant. Shri S.G.Jagtap, Advocate for Respondent Corporation. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 11, 2009. 1. Heard. 2. This application for review of order passed by this Hon’ble Court on 24th July, 2009 is misconceived. The Rules on which the petitioner places reliance only make Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) applicable if the Rules of the correction are silent. The learned counsel for the Corporation has pointed out that as far as transfers are 2 concerned, there is Rule 21 which governs transfers, therefore, there is no need to look to Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. In any case, the learned counsel could not show which of those Rules of 1981 would govern the petitioner’s case. Reference by the learned counsel to Ordinance which was followed up by the Act of 2005, Act No.XXI of 2006 is misplaced since that Act applies only to the State Government employees. The Rules of the Corporation do not refer to that Act and that Act is not made applicable even by implication. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Rule 6 of the Corporation’s Rules and submitted that all Rules and instructions which were in force or were to be issued after the Rules came into force would be binding on the employees and shall be binding on them at all times. He further feels that Government Resolutions and enactments applicable to government service would also be applicable to the employees of the Corporation. First the reference of this Rule to Maharashtra Civil Services Rules is only when the Rules are silent and secondly the clauses reading “instructions, arrangements, systems, methods, procedures and practices” does not refer to Government Resolutions or enactments by the State unless, of course they are specially made applicable to the Corporation. Therefore, the contention based on an act based by the State cannot be countenance. 3 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that out of four employees three were retained because their rights were serving and the petitioner was singled out and thus, discrimination was practiced. Now, the petitioner has to see that if all four’s wives were serving somebody has to be ________ every one employee whose transfer of complaints and other were accommodated it would be impossible for the Corporation transfers to any employee unless it decides the employer to bachelors alone or the Corporation _____ restriction that an employee of the Corporation should have allow his wife to serve. 5. In view of this, no case for review is made out. The revision application is rejected. JUDGE RR.