1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1542 OF 2010 (The Municipal Council, Wardha vs. Smt. Devindrabai B. Wasnik & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. APRIL 28, 2010. Heard Shri Sambre, learned counsel for the petitioner. The contention of the employer is, the respondents were working in Balwadi sponsored by the State Government and those Balwadis are taken back by the State Government. After the Balwadis were taken back, the respondents were called and were asked to work in Bal Mandir, but the respondents have failed to report. In these circumstances, it is contended that as the respondents were appointed on a particular work under a Scheme their seniority and status could not have been compared with others working on daily wages. The direction of regularization issued by so comparing is, therefore, unsustainable. Shri Mohta, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, points out that the learned Member of Industrial Court has found that the respondents were working as Peons and there is no finding that they were appointed under any Scheme. 2 He, therefore, states that after noticing that similarly placed juniors have been regularized, direction has been issued. With the assistance of both learned counsel, I have perused the papers. There is no order of appointment intimating the respondents that they are appointed under any Scheme funded by the Government. Similarly, the fact that the respondents were called for employment by State Government after the State Government taken back Balwadi is not pointed out to Industrial Court and there is no finding in that respect by that Court. In these circumstances, the learned Member of Industrial Court has found other Peons working on daily wages and junior to the respondents already regularized by superseding the claim of respondents. Hence, the direction has been issued. The contention of the petitioners that the respondents were working as Balwadi Sevikas is found to be incorrect. The judgment of Industrial Court itself shows that the witness of the petitioner by name Shri Rode accepted that the respondents were employed as Peons. Thus, availability of vacancies is not in dispute, juniors are already regularized and the employment of respondents under a particular Scheme has not been brought on record. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra SRTC vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, 3 reported at (2009) 8 SCC 556, therefore, clearly covers the controversy. There is no case made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.