CWP 1412/95 //1// IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR O R D E R CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1412/ 95 DINESH KUMAR CHANDEL VERSUS SHRI KESHORAI PATAN SAHAKARI SUGAR MILL LTD. DATE OF ORDER : : : 17/ 02/ 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Hemant Garg, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Brij Sharma, counsel for the respondent. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the grievance that he may be given appointment on regular establishment amongst Seasonal Retainers taking note of the policy of reservation belonging to members of Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes. As alleged in the petition, the petitioner initially joined as temporary clerk Grade III on 15th March, 1974 and was declared Seasonal permanent Retainer vide order dated 3rd April, 1978 and the list of the employees duly circulated by the respondents vide Annexure-2. However grievance of the petitioner is that though junior to him as per the list Annexure-2, they were made regular and confirmed but the same treatment was not extended to him . In reply filed by the respondents, it has been CWP 1412/95 //2// averred in para No.8 that 16 employees through their union including Jamna Lal Dhabai raised a dispute and after its adjudication in terms of the award benefit was granted to him and as regards A.G Pathan & Ramesh Kumar Chouhan, they were not in service of the respondents. I have considered the contentions of Counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. In fact, Annexure 2 is a list of em ployees who were declared Seasonal Permanent Retainers and is not a seniority list of such em ployees as claimed by the petitioner and seniority inter-se with Mr Dhabi, is not sufficient unless one is found suitable to be made permanent and confirmed as Seasonal retainer. It has been averred by the respondents that so far as Mr. Dhabai is concerned, a dispute was raised by him and after adjudication in terms of the award benefit has been extended to him. Such disputed questions certainly could not be exam ined by this Court under limited jurisdiction available under Article 226 of the Constitution. Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (AJAY RASTOGI) J CKThanvi/p.2/1412CW95-17FbCKT.doc