1 NMW187.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.187 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2392 OF 2006 KJ Santosh Singh Gulab Singh & Anr. )..Petitioners Vs. Union of India & Anr. )..Respondents W I T H NOTICE OF MOTION NO.188 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2442 OF 2006 Pradeep Kumar Kunjilal & Anr. )..Petitioners Vs. Union of India & Anr. )..Respondents ---- Mr.Sandeep Marne for the petitioners. Mr.T.J.Pandian for respondent nos.1 & 2. ---- CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 21/4/2011. PC 1 Writ petitions have been filed to challenge the decision of the 2 NMW187.11.sxw Central Administrative Tribunal dated 30.3.2006 in Original Application No.692 of 2003. The principal relief claimed by the petitioners before the Tribunal was to direct the respondents to screen the petitioners for regularization of their services and if found fit, regularize their services w.e.f June-2003, when other casual labourers were regularized. The Tribunal however, negatived the plea of the petitioners. Against that decision, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of present writ petitions. The same were admitted on 24.4.2007. During the pendency of these petitions, according to the petitioners, persons similarly placed, had approached the Tribunal for identical relief by way of separate Original Applications. The leading matter was Original Application No.442 of 2004. The said Original Applications were disposed of by the Tribunal by common judgment and order dated 9.6.2010. By the said decision, Tribunal has directed that committee of three officers i.e High Power Committee shall scrutinize the case of each of the applicant who has succeeded before the Tribunal. The claim of the petitioners is that they are similarly placed. It is also not in dispute that the 3 NMW187.11.sxw decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 9.6.2010 has been confirmed by this Court in Writ Petition No.607 of 2011 and companion petitions decided on 17.2.2011. According to the petitioners, they are similarly placed along with the original applicant who has succeeded before the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the petitioners have taken out the Notice of Motions for disposing of the writ petitions by issuing similar direction as has been issued in the case of Ramprasad Jagannathram read with the decision of this Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Satish Bhosle being Writ Petition No.607 of 2011. 2 The Counsel for the respondents however, contends that the petitioner no.2 is admittedly ineligible for being considered. The fact that the petitioner no.2 is ineligible is a matter which can be examined by the High Power Committee. If the High Power Committee answers that issue against the petitioner no.2, there can be no doubt that the petitioner no.2 will have to abide by the said decision subject to being set aside by the superior authority or 4 NMW187.11.sxw competent Court on the grounds permissible in law. 3 Insofar as petitioner no.1 is concerned, in any case, his proposal will have to be considered by the High Power Committee on the same lines as has been ordered in the case of Ramprasad Jagannathram (supra) and Satish Bhosale (supra). 4 We accordingly, allow these writ petitions on the same terms as in the case of Ramprasad Jagannathram and Satish Bhosale referred to above. Writ petitions made absolute in terms of prayer clauses-(a) and (b) subject to above. 5 In view of disposal of writ petitions, nothing survives in the Notice of Motions and the same are also disposed of. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)