DILIP SONAVANE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals, all these appeals are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience the pleadings and material available in the record of W.A. No. 182/2014 is being referred to.

(2.) APPELLANTS were working as daily wages employees in the establishment of Municipal Corporation, Burhanpur. It was their case that they have worked in the said capacity for more than 20 years and as their claims were not being considered, matter came to this Court in various Writ Petitions for e.g. in W.P. No. 18485/2011 a Assistant Grade III claimed regularization in service. In W.P. No. 6762/2011 one Sanjay Choudhary claimed regularization. A bench of this Court considered these questions and on 29.2.2012 passed an order in W.P. No. 6762/2011 and the following directions were issued : -

(3.) SHRI Manoj Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, took us through the relevant material and documents available on record and argued that when the earlier writ petition was disposed of by a Single Bench vide order dated 29.2.2012 as reproduced herein above, no such contention with regard to fixation of a limit in the matter of establishment expenditure was indicated. It is said that such a ground having never been raised in the earlier round of litigation, respondents are not entitled to raise such an objection now. That apart, he tried to emphasize that in an unreasonable manner and without any justification prayer of the appellants have been rejected even though in its detailed recommendations given on 6.12.2012 the High Power Committee has recommended for regularization. That apart, learned counsel tried to challenge the contention of the respondents that regularization of the petitioners would have the effect of increasing the establishment cost from 65% to 80.32%. It is argued that this assertion is not correct.