1 CA 225/2011 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 225 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 224 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6484 OF 2010 State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Applicants V/s Vasant Savaleram Chilap .. Respondent Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, Addl. G.P. for the applicants. Mr. Kamlakar Koli for the respondent. ORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & D.G. KARNIK, J. Wednesday, March 23, 2011 P.C. : 1. Civil Application No. 225 of 2011 is filed by the applicants (respondents in the writ petition) for vacating/setting aside or for recalling the order dated 14th December 2010 by which this Court had directed the applicants to employ the respondent herein on provisional basis subject to the result of the writ petition. 2 CA 225/2011 2. The respondent is a project affected person from whom possession of the land was taken in the year 1980 and the certificate that the respondent is a project affected person was issued in the year 1990. Between 1993 and 1999 the respondent was offered casual employment and accordingly he worked as an employee of the applicants during the said period. It is the applicants’ case that the respondent was offered regular employment and the respondent contends that the employment was of temporary nature. 3. Without going into the above controversy, the fact remains that the respondent is a project affected person for whom 5% reservation is provided by the applicants in the employment. The respondent is also a person with physical disability inasmuch as his left forehand is amputed as well as three fingers of the right hand. The respondent is therefore a physically handicapped person for whom 3% reservation is provided. 4. According to the applicants, the respondent’s name is at serial no.126 in the list of project affected persons. The applicants are however not permitted to give the respondent the benefit in both the categories. Prima facie, it appears to us that 3 CA 225/2011 when the respondent is a projected affected person, even in the category of project affected persons the applicants are required to give benefit to the persons with disabilities under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The applicants have not extended the benefit of such reservation in the category of project affected persons. 5. In view of the above, we see no justification to recall our order dated 14th December 2010 by which we had merely directed the applicants to employ the respondent on the provisional basis. Hence, the Civil Application No. 225 of 2011 is dismissed. 6. As regards the Civil Application No. 224 of 2011 praying for extension of time limit to comply with our order dated 14th December 2011, we grant extension up to 31st March 2011. 7. Both the applications are accordingly disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE D.G. KARNIK, J.