IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that regularization of daily wage employees must be based on the existence of permanent vacancies and the seniority of employees, in line with the principles set forth in Umadevi and related case law.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. We have heard the learned advocate for the respective sides, extensively. The Petitioner is the State Authority which has challenged the judgment and order dtd. 26/8/2022 delivered by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by which the O.A. No.335/2020 has been partly allowed with the following directions:

"(i) The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the applicant on the post of Peon in Class-IV category with effect from 27/7/2011 with all consequential service benefits as a regular employee in accordance with law.

(ii) The respondents are directed to comply with the said order within the period of three months from the date of this order.

(B) The present Original Application is rejected in respect of the impugned order dtd. 6/8/2019 issued by the respondent No.1."

3. We are exercising our jurisdiction in the light of the judgments of this Court delivered in Municipal Council, Tirora and another Vs. Tulsidas Baliram Bindhade; 2016 (6) Mh.L.J.867, Mukhyadhikari, Nagar Parishad, Tuljapur Vs. Vishal Vijay Amrutrao and others; 2015 (5) Mh.L.J. 75 and Municipal Council Tuljapur Vs. Baban Hussain Dhale; decided on 26/2/2015 in Writ Petition No.1843/2015. For the sake of brevity, we are referring to the employee as 'Applicant' and the employer as 'Petitioner'.

4. The relevant facts and sequence of events can be advantageously adverted to as under:

a) The Applicant was appointed by the Petitioner at the Health Training squad at Paithan, which would fall under the Medical Education and Research Department, as a daily wager on 21/9/1996.

b) He was given 29 days appointments.

c) After every spell of appointment, a break of a day or two or a little more was introduced.

d) In 1997, the Applicant preferred O.A. No.507/1997 seeking employment in the Class 3 category. By judgment dtd. 25/8/2008, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. concluding that he was not entitled to the Class 3 category.

e) The Applicant preferred Writ Petition No.7409/2008 which was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dtd. 26/7/2011 granting him liberty to approach the Courts under the Labour Laws in case his services are terminated.

f) The Applicant preferred Complaint (ULP) No.113/2011 seeking regularization in the Class 3 category. By judgment dtd. 2/1/2018, the ULP Complaint was dismissed and the department was directed to forward a proposal of the Petitioner to the State.

g) The first proposal with regard to the Applicant is dtd. 2/2/2015 which is said to be still pending.

h) Pursuant to the order of the Industrial Court, a second proposal dtd. 11/4/2019, for considering the case of the Applicant for regularization in the Class 4 category, was submitted to the Government.

i) The Government rejected this proposal by order dtd. 6/8/2019.

j) The Applicant preferred O.A. No. 335/2020 before the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and by carrying out an amendment, the order of rejection of his second proposal dtd. 6/8/2019, was assailed.

k) The learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, partly allowed the O.A. in terms of the re-produced order, hereinabove. The O.A. was rejected to the extent of the order dtd. 6/8/2019 rejecting the proposal for regularization of the Applicant.

l) The Tribunal has concluded that the Applicant's temporary appointment on the post of Peon in the Class 4 category was protected by interim orders. After the disposal of the Writ Petition No.7409/2008 on 26/7/2011, there was no protective order of any Court or Tribunal. Hence, he was granted regularization from that date, without considering whether there is any vacancy and whether there are any similarly situated peons who may have a claim for regularisation on the basis of their seniority.

5. Considering the law laid down by this Court in Municipal Council, Tirora (supra) which is a judgment on reference to the larger bench, it is settled th