KHURSHID BEGUM NIYAZODDIN Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has put forth the following prayers in terms of prayer clauses 12(A), (B) and (C) :-

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that, he was appointed as a Peon with the Government Grainery at Pathri. He was not appointed as a Watchman. However, the petitioner was directed by the authorities to work as a Peon between 10.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m. and then work as a Watchman between 6.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. and some times from 6.00 p.m. to 10.00 a.m. The letter issued by the Godown Keeper, dated 20.7.1990 is shown, in which, the Godown Keeper has stated that the petitioner was also working as a Watchman.

(3.) We have considered the strenuous submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P., who has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 to 3. Respondent No.4, the Godown Keeper at Pathri, has not appeared in the matter despite service of Court notice.