SHIRSHAL RAJENDRA POTDUKHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the facts and the issues involved in these Writ Petitions are similar they are heard together and are decided by this common order.

(2.) By these Writ Petitions, the petitioners challenge the communications of the respondents, dated 28th June, 2016 and 30th June, 2016 to the extent that they put an end to the services of the petitioners as Engineer, Accountant and Data Entry Operator, respectively. The petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners as Engineer, Accountant, Data Entry Operator, as the case may be.

(3.) In pursuance of a scheme framed by the Union of India that was sought to be implemented by the State Government for the development of backward areas in various districts in the State of Maharashtra, by a Government Resolution dated 31st March 2010, it was decided to make temporary appointments in the approved units, either by outsourcing or on contractbasis. Under the Government Resolution the appointments were to be made on temporary basis, on honorarium, which should not exceed a sum of Rs. 40,000/ for all the employees in a particular unit. In pursuance of the Government Resolution, dated 31.3.2010, advertisements were issued by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 inviting applications for appointment as Engineer, Accountant and Data Entry Operator, for a period of eleven months, on a fixed honorarium. The petitioners applied in pursuance of the advertisement and were appointed as such, for a period of eleven months on a fixed honorarium. By a subsequent Government Resolution dated 2nd September 2013, only the honorarium was sought to be increased to some extent. It is the case of the petitioners that on the expiry of the term of eleven months after each appointmentemployment, after giving an artificial break, the petitioners were again appointed as Engineer, Accountant and Data Entry Operator for a period of eleven months on honorarium and on contractbasis. The scheme admittedly was to come to an end on 31st July, 2016 and the said scheme was not to be continued from 1st August, 2016. By the impugned communications, the petitioners were informed that their services would come to an end, in terms of the last appointment orders, on 31st July 2016. After receiving the said communications, the petitioners have filed the instant petitions seeking the regularisation of their services. The petitioners have also challenged the communications by which their services were brought to an end after the expiry of the term of eleven months, as per the last appointment order.