1 wp2126.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.2126 OF 2010 Shri Narendra Murlidhar Kharade : Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos.1 & 4. Mr.C.S.Joshi for respondent no.2. Mr.Amit Borkar for respondent no.3. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE : AUGUST 09, 2010. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respective respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of placement of the respondent no.3 above the petitioner in the seniority list published by the Zilla Parishad dated 9.12.2009. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed from O.B.C. category as Junior Engineer with effect from 22.12.1994 whereas the respondent no.3 was appointed 2 wp2126.10 as Junior Engineer with effect from 13.9.1990. It is not in dispute that the petitioner as well as the respondent no.3 were brought on regular establishment vide order dated 20.11.2001. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide Government Resolution dated 8.3.1999, the criterion of fixing inter se seniority was from the date on which the services of the employees are regularised i.e. with effect from 8.3.1999. It is submitted that since the petitioner was in the employment since 1994 and the respondent no.3’s services were brought on regular establishment with effect from 8.3.1999, in view of the Government Resolution dated 8.3.1999, the petitioner was senior to the respondent no.3 and, therefore, the inter se seniority between the petitioner and the respondent no.3 fixed by the Zilla Parishad is bad in law. 3. Counsel for the respondent no.3, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner as well as the respondent no.3 both were brought on regular establishment in Class II vide order dated 20.11.2001. It is not disputed that the inter se seniority was required to be fixed from the date on which the petitioner as well as the respondent no.3 were brought on regular establishment i.e. with effect from 8.3.1999. It is submitted that considering these aspects, the seniority of the respondent no.3 fixed by the Zilla Parishad is just and proper, including the placement in the 3 wp2126.10 seniority list dated 9.12.2009. 4. Counsel for the Zilla Parishad does not dispute that as per Government Resolution dated 8.3.1999, inter se seniority is required to be fixed of those employees to whom the Government Resolution is applicable, with effect from 8.3.1999. It is also not disputed that vide order dated 20.11.2001, the petitioner as well as the respondent no.3 were brought on the regular establishment in Class II. 5. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. On the back drop of the above referred facts, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner as well as the respondent no.3 both were brought on regular establishment in Class II vide order dated 20.11.2001. The Government Resolution dated 8.3.1999 requires the Zilla Parishad to fix inter se seniority from the date the employees are brought on regular establishment. It appears that the Zilla Parishad failed to appreciate the purport of the Government Resolution dated 8.3.1999 as well as the order dated 20.11.2001 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, and, therefore, it will be appropriate for the Zilla Parishad to re-consider the issue of inter se seniority between the petitioner and the respondent no.3, considering the Government Resolution dated 8.3.1999, the order 4 wp2126.10 dated 20.11.2001 as well as other Government Resolution/circular which are holding the field and are applicable in this regard. 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we direct the Zilla Parishad to consider this aspect afresh and take a decision about the inter se seniority of the petitioner as well as the respondent no.3, in accordance with law, as well as in view of the observations made by us in this order, by following the principles of natural justice, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 7. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. (D.D. SINHA, J.) (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)