1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4357 OF 2009 Keshav s/o Laxman Salunkhe, Age : 38 years, Occu. Service, R/o Gramin Rugnalaya, Bhadgaon, Tal. Bhadgaon, Dist. Jalgaon ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through It’s Secretary, Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Director of Health Services, Pune Division, Navin Madhavarti Building, 1st Floor, Pune-1 3. The Deputy Director, Health Services, Nasik Circle, Nasik 4. The District Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon 5. Medical Superintendent, Class-1, Rural Hospital, Parola, Tal. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon ..RESPONDENTS 2 Mr V.Y. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner Mr N.N. Jadhav, AGP for respondents. CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 10TH JULY, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER P.V. HARDAS, J.] Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. We have heard Shri V.Y. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.N. Jadhav, learned A.G.P., who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. The limited relief which the petitioner has prayed for in this petition is of directing the respondents to decide the proposal in respect of granting benefits of permanency to the petitioner submitted by the respondents, dated 15.3.2008. 3. It appears that the petitioner had initially been appointed by the respondents on daily wages. Subsequently the services of the petitioner came to be terminated and consequently the petitioner approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court allowed the complaint of the petitioner and granted continuity in service and reinstatement of the petitioner with 25% back wages. A revision was preferred by the respondents challenging the order of the Labour Court, 3 which revision came to be dismissed by the Industrial Court. Thereafter the petitioner filed another complaint i.e.ULP No.2 of 2001 seeking benefits of permanency. The aforesaid complaint came to be allowed and the respondents, being aggrieved by the order of the Industrial Court filed Writ Petition No. 7193 of 2006. The learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 16.1.2008 dismissed the said writ petition. Thereafter a proposal came to be moved to the respondent - State Government, dated 15.3.2008 seeking permission to grant the benefits to the petitioner. The aforesaid proposal is said to be pending consideration. As a result of pendency of this proposal, the petitioner has been deprived of the benefits of permanency. 4. Shri N.N. Jadhav, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the respondents states that the aforesaid proposal would be decided within four weeks from today. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the Court. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute by directing the respondents to decide the said proposal within four weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. No order as to costs.