1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 2071 OF 2004 1. Shri.Sambhaji Shripati Kawade ] Aged 41 years, Occ: Service, ] R/o 219, A-Ward, Rajopadhye ] Nagar, Sane Guruji Vasahat, ] Kolhapur. ] ] 2. Shri.Shivaji Keshav Magdum ] Aged 40 years, Occ: Service ] R/o Layout No.2, Plot No.16, ] Baba Jarag Nagar, B-Ward, ] Kolhapur. ] ] 3. Shri.Arun Mahadev Patil ] Aged 44 years, Occ: Service ] Layout No.2, Plot No.16, ] Baba Jarag Nagar, B-Ward ] Kolhapur. ]..Petitioners Vs. 1. The Chief Executive Officer, ] Kolhapur Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur ] ] 2. The State of Maharashtra ] Through the Secretary, ] Rural Development & Water ] Conservation Department, ] Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032 ]..Respondents .... Mr. Prashant Bhavake Adv. i/b Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar Adv. for Petitioners Mr. S.R.Nargolkar AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. .... 2 CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : JULY 3, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER BILAL NAZKI, J.] 1. The Petitioners were working on temporary basis in a temporary arrangement. They were not appointed by following the Rules of selection. When selection was made, they were not selected hence, they have filed Writ Petition in this Court and by virtue of an interim order, they continued in service. The Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 26th June, 2000. Earlier the matter had also gone to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court had directed that the candidates could be reconsidered but no reconsideration was at any point of time, given as the High Court was informed that Selection Board had been disbanded from 8th March, 1999. Since the petitioners had obtained an order of stay from this Court, they continued in their service. When the matter came up before this Court for final disposal, at that time, the Government had passed a Resolution dated 29th April, 1999 and Government envisaged a scheme for regularization of those persons who had been appointed de hors the Rules. This laid certain conditions. Condition (F) was that seniority of the employee should be counted from the date of the said Resolution. Condition (F) was that benefit for fortuitous appointment could not be given for any purpose/reason. The 3 High Court took note of this Resolution and gave directions in following terms. “(a) Respondents are directed to take an appropriate decision in the case of the Petitioners in the light of the Government Resolution dated 29th April, 1999 within a period of four weeks from today and pass all consequential orders with regards to their service benefits. ” 2. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the Respondents and they passed an order dated 29th July, 2000. But in this order, they said that services of the petitioners are regularized from the date of initial appointment in the school, which was the date prior to the date on which the Government passed the Resolution dated 29.4.1999. Thereafter, it appears that the respondents realized that they had committed a mistake while issuing the order of regularization of the petitioners by giving effect to their regularization from a date which was not envisaged in the Government Resolution, therefore, the order was passed which is impugned in this petition. Resolution clarified that the effect of regularization should be from 29.4.2009. The High Court also directed implementation of the Resolution and consideration of the petitioners ’ case under the Resolution. In any case, law is settled that any benefits accrued to an employee by way of seniority or pensionery benefits, have to be counted from the date of regular appointment and not prior to that. Therefore, we do not find that the respondents were wrong in correcting the order which they had passed in violation of the Government Resolution and in violation of the directions of this Court. 4 Petitioners by their amendment, challenged the earlier Government Resolution also. It is unfortunate that the Petitioners had got the reliefs from the Court on the strength of some Resolution and after getting the benefits and getting the services regularized, want to assail the same Resolution. For these reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition. However, if any monetary benefits have already been extended to the petitioners for the period they were initially appointed till the date of regularization, those amounts be not recovered from the petitioners. 3. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. [ BILAL NAZKI,J. ] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]