1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4353/2011 ( Suresh Pandurang Mahadule ..Vs.. The Municipal Council, Gondia, through its Chief Officer and others ) With Writ Petition No.4354/2011 ( Smt. Lakshmibai Pralhad Bhimte ..Vs.. The Municipal Council, Gondia, through its Chief Officer and others ) With Writ Petition No.4355/2011 ( Sau. Sushilabai Ramesh Sonwane ..Vs.. The Municipal Council, Gondia, through its Chief Officer and others ) With Writ Petition No.4356/2011 ( Chuunilal Daduji Deshmukh ..Vs.. The Municipal Council, Gondia, through its Chief Officer and others ) With Writ Petition No.4357/2011 ( Krushnakumar Pratapsingh Rathod ..Vs.. The Municipal Council, Gondia, through its Chief Officer and others ) With Writ Petition No.4358/2011 ( Prabhudas Babulal Chichkhede ..Vs.. The Municipal Council, Gondia, through its Chief Officer and others ) With Writ Petition No.4359/2011 ( Ramesh Barkuji Bhandarkar ..Vs.. The Municipal Council, Gondia, through its Chief Officer and others ) 2 With Writ Petition No.4360/2011 ( Smt. Lilavati Doma Shende ..Vs.. The Municipal Council, Gondia, through its Chief Officer and others ) With Writ Petition No.4361/2011 ( Radheshyam Jangluji Parate ..Vs.. The Municipal Council, Gondia, through its Chief Officer and others ) With Writ Petition No.4362/2011 ( Madhuri Masram ..Vs.. The Municipal Council, Gondia, through its Chief Officer and others ) With Writ Petition No.4363/2011 ( Atmaram Nanhu Gaidhane ..Vs.. The Municipal Council, Gondia, through its Chief Officer and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. B.M. Kharkate, Adv. for petitioners. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & M.N. GILANI, JJ . COMMON ORDER ( Per M.N. Gilani, J.) Date of Reserving the order : 17/09/2011. Date of Pronouncing the order : 21/09/2011. 1. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are challenging the 3 communication dated 22/8/2006 issued by the respondent no.3 whereby, the respondent no.1 was directed to provide work to the petitioners subject to certain conditions and only till they attain age of 55 years. The facts and the legal issue involved in these petitions being common, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners were appointed on various posts like Peon, Helper in Garden, Watchman etc. in between 1978 to 1986 by the respondent no.1. Their appointments were purely casual in nature and on daily wages. While considering the request of the petitioners to regularize their appointments, the respondent no.2 - State of Maharashtra took some policy decision. In pursuance to that, the communication dated 22/8/2006 was issued by the respondent no.3 to the respondent no.1 stating that those employees appointed on daily wages and had been working from 10/3/1993 be provided with similar nature of work till each of them attains age of 55 years. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioners that directions issued by the respondent no.3 to retain them in the employment till they attain the age of 55 years is discriminatory and violative of principles enshrined under 4 Article 14 of the Constitution. According to them, the age of retirement on superannuation for the employees working with the Government and the Local Bodies in Class-IV cadre is 60 years. Therefore, there was no reason for the respondent no.3 to distinguish their cases with those employees who are similarly situated and who retire only after completing the age of 60 years. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the view that petitioners cannot claim parity with the employees working on the establishment or the Local Bodies for the very simple reason that they are not similarly situated. Perusal of the averments in the petition and the communication impugned reveal that the appointments of the petitioners were casual in nature and that too on daily wages. This seems to be the reason for not producing by them the letter/order of appointment or any other document evidencing terms of employment. Further, their appointments were not against the sanctioned post or within the limit of unit staff which was sanctioned for the establishment of respondent no. 1. It is also discernible that the appointments were not in accordance with any recruitment rules or the policy decision much less were made after issuing public advertisement. The 5 communication impugned appears to be the decision taken by the respondent no.3 purely on humanitarian ground just to create employment for the petitioners till they attain age of 55 years. At this stage, a reference can usefully be made to the decision in case of A. Umarani V/s. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and ors. (2004 (6) SCALE 350) which was followed in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others V/s. Umadevi and others [(2006) 4 S.C.C. 1] and recently followed in State of Bihar V/s. Upendra Singh and others [(2009) 5 S.C.C. 65]. 5. For the foregoing reasons the petitioners have not made out a case for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other writ to grant them a benefit of permanency like directing the respondents to retain them in service till they attain the age of 60 years at par with the employees who are appointed on regular basis. 6. There being no legal or constitutional obligation capable of being enforceable in favour of the petitioners, this group of petitions is dismissed in limine. JUDGE JUDGE Tambaskar.