1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1531 OF 2008 1) Bharat s/o Laxman Phere, R/o-Shiv Krupa Nivas, Chhatrapati Shahu Nagar, Osmanabad. 2) Ramakant s/o Sadashiv Mali, R/o-Karmadan Nivas, Samatanagar, Osmanabad, Dist-Osmanabad. ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Chief Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) The Commissioner, Aurangabad, 3) The Chief Executive Officer, Osmanabad, 4) The Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad Works Department, Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.R.P. Bhumkar Advocate for Petitioners. Shri.K.B.Choudhari, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri.K.J. Ghute Patil Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. ... 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 19TH MARCH, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner No.2 has retired from services of Zilla Parishad. The Petitioner No.1 is said to be still in service. It is the contention of the Petitioners that some of the employees had approached the Industrial Court by filing Complaints under Item Nos.5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule-IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. By Judgment and Order dated 15th January 1999, the Industrial Court, Solapur allowed the said Complaints. The said Judgment and Order was challenged by the Zilla Parishad in batch of Writ Petitions being Writ Petition Nos. 1740 of 2000, 1741 of 2000, 1742 of 2000 and 1748 of 2000. By Judgment and Order dated 20th September, 2001, the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the 3 said Writ Petitions and set aside the common Judgment and Order passed in all the Complaints. 3. The contention of the Petitioners is that those employees misled the Government due to which they were regularized in service and later on promoted. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that in this Petition the prayer is to initiate enquiry against the responsible officers and to cancel the appointment orders. 5. Affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent Zilla Parishad submits that the Petitioner No.2 has already filed Contempt Petition, which is pending. The Petitioner No.2 has already retired. In the submission of the learned counsel, the Petitioners are misleading the Authorities and the Court and even trying to blackmail the Authorities. The counsel submitted 4 that by the Government Resolution dated 28th November, 2003, the posts were created and by annexing schedule to the G.R., specific persons were absorbed in the service including the persons against whom the Petitioners have grievance. At the time of hearing of the Writ Petitions, the posts were not sanctioned, therefore the Zilla Parishad adopted the stand that the complainants before the Industrial Court should not be regularized. But in view of the sanction of the posts by the State Government, the statement came to be made before the Court in Letters Patent Appeal Nos.10 of 2002 to 13 of 2002 on 20th August, 2004, that those employees were absorbed. 6. We have considered the affidavit in reply, the Government Resolution dated 28th November, 2003 and the Order passed by the learned Single Judge in the above said Writ Petitions and Order passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeals. 7. In view of the facts disclosed in the reply 5 filed by the Respondents, we are not inclined to entertain the Petition. The employees were already absorbed and regularized and later on promoted. The Petitioner No.2, it is informed, had already filed Contempt Petition, which is pending. The Petitioners could not reopen the issue now, which is already concluded. The Petitioners have not made such employees and officers as party Respondents, against whom relief is claimed. Hence the Writ Petition is dismissed. [N.D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/MAR10/wp1531.08