1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPELLATE SIDE, CRIMINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.: 3340 OF 2001 *** 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Govt. Pleader, High Court Bench at Aurangabad. 2. The Director, Libraries, Government of Maharashtra, Nagar Bhavan, Bombay-23. 3. Granthpal, Govt. Regional Library, New Osmanpura, Aurangabad. ... PETITIONERS [ORI.RESPONDENTS]. Versus Dhansingh S/o Dokaraji Prasad, Age: 35 tears, Occu.: Service, R/o Juna Mondha (Rohidaspura), Balaji Mandir, Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENT [ORI.APPLICANT.] *** Shri K. S. Patil, A.G.P. for the Petitioner/ State. Shri A. M. Awate, Advocate h/f Mr. A.D.Gadekar, Advocate for the Respondent. *** WRIT PETITION NO.: 3595 OF 2001 1. The State of Maharashtra. Through Government Pleader, High Court Bench at Aurangabad. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Nanded Dist. Nanded. ... PETITIONERS. VERSUS 2 Anusayabai W/o Gunaji Gajbhare, Age: 39 years, Occu.: Service, R/o At. Post. Manatha, Tq. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded. ... RESPONDENTS. *** Mr. R. P. Phatke, A.G.P. for the Petitioners/ State. *** WRIT PETITION NO.: 3605 OF 2001 1. The State of Maharashtra. Through Government Pleader, High Court Bench at Aurangabad. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Nanded Dist. Nanded. ... PETITIONERS. VERSUS Shri Sk. Mainoddin S/o Sk. Abdul Gafar, Age: 27 years, Occu.: Service, R/o Cidco ND 41 K-1-40/1, New Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. ... RESPONDENT. *** Mr. R. P. Phatke, A.G.P. for the Petitioners/ State. Mr. D. A. Karnik, Advocate h/f Mr. Vivek Dhage for the Respondent. *** CORAM: S. B. DESHMUKH & K. U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATED:- 24th AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: [Per Deshmukh, J.}: 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present respondents, who were original applicants in the respective Original Applications filed before the Maharashtra 3 Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench at Aurangabad (the Tribunal, for short). Factually around 9 original applications appears to had filed before the learned Tribunal. All these original applications were heard together by the learned Tribunal and have been disposed of by the common judgment dated 21st December, 2000 copy of which Annexure-C (Page 33) is on record. With the assistance of learned counsel present before the Court, we have seen the judgment of learned Tribunal. Indisputably, we are concerned with Applicant in Original Application No.215 of 1995, 1085 of 1999 and 132 of 2000. Facts have been referred by the learned Tribunal in para 3 of the judgment. According to the contention raised by the Respondents before the learned Tribunal, they were appointed on 1st June, 1989 and March, 1999 and since then were working as Sweeper. According to the Respondents, initially an amount of Rs.80/- per month was paid to them for the period of one year. From the year 1999 the Respondents have been paid Rs.140/- per month. In original applications, 4 directions were sought against the Respondents/ present petitioners for grant of pay scale of Rs.750-1200. Learned A.G.P. points out para 5 of the judgment of learned Tribunal. It appears that, reply on before of the present petitioners was common reply. It was filed in Original Application No.1823 of 2000. The present Petitioners have raised a contention in their reply before the learned Tribunal that the Applicants were appointed as Sweeper and were part-timers. Rs.140/- per month was the payment. According to the present petitioners, earlier amount of Rs.80/- per month was being paid for such sweeping work to the original applicants. It was raised to Rs.140/- per month. Subsequently from 1st March, 1999 it has been raised to Rs. 252/- per month. It is also contended on behalf of present Petitioners that the State Government, from time to time, has revised the emoluments and, therefore, original applicants are not justified in making any grievance. Statement was also made in the reply that if original applicants are not satisfied with the payment offered by the State Government, 5 option of leaving the job was open for them. This statement has been criticised by the learned Tribunal. 3. We have seen the judgment of learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal has referred to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Regularisation in favour of the part-timers is not granted by the learned Tribunal. Contention raised by the Respondents/ original applicants that they were required to work for four hours in a day has been noticed. Statement made by the State Government that sweeper was not required to work for more than two hours in a day is also being considered by the learned Tribunal. 4. After referring to the contentions raised by the parties, their arguments, the learned Tribunal has passed the order in a balancing manner. Regularisation has not been awarded in favour of the original applicants. No pay scale, though it was sought for by the Respondents/ original applicants, was awarded by the learned Tribunal. Order passed by the learned Tribunal, in our view, cannot be said to be perverse to be interfered with. Learned 6 counsel for the Respondent in Writ Petition No.3605 of 2001 has pointed out judgment of learned Division Bench of this Court dated 29th April, 2009 in Writ Petition NO.1825 of 2001 with Writ Petition No.3594 of 2001. 5. In our view, no case for judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is established on behalf of the Petitioner/ State. We do not see any merit in this writ petition. 6. Writ petitions stand dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. [K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.] [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:24/08/2010. ans/3340 7 WRIT PETITION NO.: 3340, 3595 & 3605 OF 2001 Date of decision: 24th AUGUST, 2010. For approval and signature THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S. B. DESHMUKH. THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE K. U. CHANDIWAL. . Whether Reporters of local papers ... Yes may be allowed to see the judgment? . To be referred to the Reporter or not? ... No . Whether Their Lordships wish to see ... No the fair copy of the judgment? . Whether this case involves a substantial... No question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder? . Whether it is to be circulated to the ... No Civil Judges? . Whether the case involves an important ... No question of law and whether a copy of the judgment should be sent to Nagpur, Goa and Bombay offices? [G. F. ANSARI] PRIVATE SECRETARY TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGE