1 aswp-6329-11 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6329 OF 2011 Mr. Zamir Abdul Sattar Shaikh .. Petitioner Vs. The Commissioner for Greater Mumbai and ors. .. Respondents Mrs. Vaishali Jagdale for petitioner. Mr. M. M. Malvankar for respondents. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE JJ. SEPTEMBER 06, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He claims that he was appointed on compassionate grounds on 19/4/1997. However, he had met with an accident sometimes in June 2003 and when he reported for duty on 9/12/2003 he was not allowed to join. He filed Writ Petition No. 6279 of 2009 and the petition was disposed off by this court on 23/11/2009. It was noted that the petitioner was in the employment of the Corporation 2 aswp-6329-11 as a Class-IV employee on ad-hoc basis from 19/4/1997 and after July 2003 he was discontinued. This court refused to interfere in the order of termination. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to apply to the Corporation for fresh employment and if the application was made within one month, the Corporation would consider the same sympathetically for ad-hoc appointment, subject to availability of vacancies. 2. The petitioner approached this court in Contempt Petition No. 263 of 2010. The Corporation appeared in the said Contempt Petition and stated that the petitioner’s application was duly considered and it was noticed that he was not eligible for re-employment and, therefore, his application was rejected. 3. In this fresh petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for directions to the Corporation to consider his candidature for appointment in regular service in Class IV category and with all other consequential service benefits or in the alternative to consider for appointment on ad-hoc basis. 4. We are afraid such a relief cannot be granted in the facts of 3 aswp-6329-11 this case. The Corporation has duly considered the petitioner’s application and held that he was not eligible for re-employment. In our opinion, the petitioner may have a remedy of raising an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. Petition is rejected. (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)