KANTIBHAI G SOLANKI Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the matter was called out, neither the learned counsel for the petitioner was present nor any one had mentioned on his behalf to keep the matter back.

(2.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to regularize his service and grant the consequential benefit of regularisation.

(3.) The short facts of the case are that vide order dated 16.10.1996 the petitioner was appointed as Supervisor for the work of project on daily rated basis. The petitioner has worked as such for more than 1100 days. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner had worked for more than five years, his services were not regularized by the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said action of the respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition.