Ajay IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7949 OF 2025 Pradip Ramesh Shinde .. Petitioner Versus Malegaon Municipal Corporation, Malegaon .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8004 OF 2025 Bhushan Suresh Thakre .. Petitioner Versus Malegaon Municipal Corporation, Malegaon .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7951 OF 2025 Sunil Ananda Bagul .. Petitioner Versus Malegaon Municipal Corporation, Malegaon .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7954 OF 2025 Sheikh Javid Sheikh Rashid .. Petitioner Versus Malegaon Municipal Corporation, Malegaon .. Respondent ....................

 Ms. Pavitra Manesh, Advocate for Petitioners.

 Mr. S.S. Patwardhan, Advocate for Respondent - Corporation.

......…...........

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2025.

JUDGMENT:

1. Heard Ms. Manesh, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Mr.

Patwardhan, learned Advocate for Respondent - Corporation.

2. This is a group of four Writ Petitions which are decided by this common judgment. By consent of parties, Writ Petitions are heard and disposed of finally. Facts are almost identical in all four cases concerning Petitioners - Employees and Respondent - Malegaon Municipal Corporation (for short 'the said Corporation').

3. Facts in Writ Petition No.7949 of 2025 and Writ Petition No.8004 of 2025 concerning Pradip Ramesh Shinde and Bhushan Suresh Thakre, who were both appointed as Driver on daily wages by appointment order dated 27.02.2017 are identical.

4. Facts in Writ Petition No.7951 of 2025 and Writ Petition No.7954 of 2025 concerning Sunil Ananda Bagul and Sheikh Javid Sheikh Rashid, who were both appointed as Firemen on daily wages by appointment order dated 07.04.2017 are identical.

5. Save and except the aforesaid distinction, all other facts are absolutely identical right upto filing of the present Writ Petitions by Petitioners. Hence for the sake of brevity detailed facts in the case of Writ Petition No.7949 of 2025 shall be referred to and relied upon in this judgment. Pursuant thereto the distinct facts pertaining to the remaining three Petitions shall also be adhered to, if so required.

6. Brief facts pertaining to appointment of Petitioners either as Driver or Firemen on and from 2017 onwards leading to filing Complaint (ULP) No.35 of 2019, continuation of the Petitioners in services of Corporation and subsequent dismissal of their ULP Complaints and subsequent termination of Petitioners by order dated 02.07.2025 despite pendency of the present Writ Petitions are as under:-

6.1. Petitioners namely Pradip Ramesh Shinde and Bhushan Suresh Thakre were appointed as Driver in the services of the Corporation by appointment order dated 27.02.2017 for a period of six months with effect from 01.03.2017 to 31.08.2017 on payment of Rs.7,000/- per month stipulating various conditions. There is no dispute about the fact that since then these Petitioners have continued working with the Corporation continuously as Driver until their services were terminated on 02.07.2025. Their services were thereafter extended and continued by further appointment orders dated 11.01.2019 and 06.01.2020 for period six months at a time with increased salary @ Rs.8,000/- per month.

6.2. Record also indicates and finding are returned by the learned Industrial Court that right from date of their initial appointment i.e. 27.02.2017 services of Petitioners were continued all throughout by issuance of appointment orders intermittently after every six months until Petitioners filed ULP Complaints before Industrial Court in the year 2019 seeking permanency in service. There is no dispute about this fact which is also an admitted fact which is not denied in the Affidavit-in-Reply filed by the Corporation in the above cases. Affidavit-in-Reply shall be adverted to while recording the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the Corporation.

6.3. The ULP Complaint as filed by Petitioners was decided at interim stage by order dated 04.11.201