PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE, J. - (1.) The writ petition is taken up for hearing in the presence of the parties.
(2.) The short point, in controversy, is whether the writ petitioners are entitled to seek absorption in the regular establishment of a municipality within the meaning of Article 243P(e) read with Article 243Q of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, the petitioners were casual workers; they submitted that they were not in the muster-roll of the municipality, but were working on a daily basis without any break for at least 240 (two hundred forty) days in a year and for a period of more than ten years. It is admitted that they were not engaged prior to December 31, 1991. They claimed the benefit of a notification and sought absorption in the regular establishment of the municipality on that basis. That notification of January 22, 1997 pertained to casual workers who are engaged till December 31, 1991. So on the face of that notification, these petitioners are not entitled to such benefit as they have claimed. In an earlier round of litigation, a coordinate Bench had directed that the representation of the writ petitioners be considered and disposed of by the concerned municipality. This order is dated December 16, 2010 passed in WP 24518 (W) of 2010 was complied with by a reasoned order dated February 15, 2011. This is Annexure P-8 to the writ petition.
(3.) I have gone through the order and I find that there are reasons given. The reasons are plausible, not arbitrary and the said order appears to have been passed after considering all the facts which were material at the relevant point of time. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said reasoned order.;