1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 9/2008 in Writ Petition No. 762/1996 (decided) Shivlal Narayan Bhoge and another ..vs.. Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola and another --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: K. J. ROHEE & R. V. MORE, JJ. DATED : 20 th February, 2008 1. Heard Mr. A. J. Thakkar, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. U. A. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. 2. The appellants were working as Agricultural Labours with respondent No. 1 and daily wages were being paid to them. They worked for a number of years. Since, they were not regularised in service, they filed complaints before the Industrial Court. By common order dated 21.11.1995, the Industrial Court allowed the complaints and directed respondent No. 1 to take immediate steps to move the State Government for creation of the posts on which the complainants therein were working and, thereafter, to absorb them in those posts. The said order was challenged by respondent No.1 by preferring writ petitions. 2 3. By common order dated 08.11.2006, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions, set aside the order of the Industrial Court and directed respondent No. 1 to maintain names of the respective respondents on their list for grant of permanency and as and when vacancy arises, shall consider them. This direction was given on the statement made by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that during the pendency of the petitions some of the respondents, who were found to be senior were already absorbed against the permanent vacancy as per their waiting list prepared for that purpose. It is, thus, obvious that the petitioners would be absorbed against the permanent vacancy as and when such vacancy is available and that too, would be done as per waiting list. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE kahale