Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 905 (BOM)

VIKAS ASHOKRAO DEKATE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2016-05-06

B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, P.N.DESHMUKH

body2016
JUDGMENT : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek declaration that condition in their appointment order or restricting tenure of their appointments be declared as bad. They seek a direction to regularise their services from the date of their appointment, and to extend them pay-scales as mentioned in Government Resolutions dated 24.01.2007, 22.01.2010 and 13.03.2013. Prayers have been later on amended to seek regularisation in services of Zilla Parishad and for quashing circular dated 14.09.2015 by which the respondents wanted to proceed with the recruitment. This Court has on 24.04.2014, after noticing interim orders passed at Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition No.4465/2014, directed the respondents not to take any steps to their prejudice and said interim orders continue to operate even today. On 14.10.2015, this Court also ordered that if any steps to fill in vacancies in respective respondent no. 5 Zilla Parishads were initiated, petitioners would be entitled to apply for consideration of their claim for regularization. 2. It appears that efforts were being made to dispose of the Writ Petition finally at the stage of admission as respondents pointed out that similar challenge was dismissed by the Aurangabad Bench of this Court while considering Writ Petition Nos. 4896 and 4988 of 2015 on 07.05.2015. 3. Accordingly, we have heard Shri. R.L. Khapre, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri. Sunil Manohar, learned Senior Advocate with Mrs. B.H. Dangre, learned Government Pleader for State of Maharashtra and its officers. Shri. P. Thakare, learned Counsel has argued the matter on behalf of respondent Zilla Parishad, Wardha. 4. As State Government has raised preliminary objection, we have heard Shri. Manohar, Senior Counsel first. He has taken us through various pleadings in the memo of writ petition to urge that the challenge is to the scheme essentially formulated by the Union of India and being implemented by the State of Maharashtra through respondent no.2 Association constituted/formed as per the directions of the Union of India. The "Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna" (PMGSY), is a special Scheme evolved by the Union of India, and is being financed by it, in the interest of Rural people. The scheme is essentially temporary in nature and the respondent no.1 State Government or then the Zilla Parishads do not have any say about the terms and conditions subject to which the scheme functions. The scheme is essentially temporary in nature and the respondent no.1 State Government or then the Zilla Parishads do not have any say about the terms and conditions subject to which the scheme functions. He points out that there is no prayer seeking regularisation or absorption in any service with State Government and a prayer to absorb in the employment of respective Zilla Parishads has been added by amendment. He has invited our attention to various clauses in the scheme and to contention of petitioners that it is necessary to lift veil of incorporation. He submits that respondent no.2 is created as per the directions of the Central Government and if veil is to be lifted, in this situation, Union of India is an essential party. He submits that lifting of veil, and therefore, holding that the arrangement as evolved is, sham or bogus, essentially pertains to domain of appreciation of disputed facts. Facts cannot be ascertained without hearing Union of India and without giving the party an opportunity to produce evidence. He heavily relies upon the orders passed at Aurangabad on 07.05.2015, to seek dismissal of Writ Petitions on this ground. 5. Shri. Khapre, learned Counsel states that in order to understand the exact nature of challenge and to point out how Union of India is not necessary party, it is necessary to look into the fundamentals of the scheme, the provisions of Constitution of India, responsibility cast upon Panchayat Raj System thereby and obligations of Zilla Parishads under Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat and Panchayat Samities Act, 1961 and role of District Planning Authority. He states that when all this is considered together, it becomes clear that the construction of roads is a State subject as per Constitution and duty of either State or Zilla Parishad. Central Government is only releasing funds for said purpose and through those funds, roads are being constructed. He does not dispute that the respondent no.2 is constituted and registered as a Society, as directed by the Central Government, however, he invites attention to its composition to show that it is nothing, but, State Government. Aims and objects as also bye laws of respondent no.2 are pressed into service to urge that it is State Government which is acting indirectly through respondent no.2. Aims and objects as also bye laws of respondent no.2 are pressed into service to urge that it is State Government which is acting indirectly through respondent no.2. He relies upon bye law no.34 to show that dissolution of society is possible only with the prior approval of State Government. 6. Though, Union of India releases funds for construction of roads, salary or wages of employees is the responsibility of the State Government. Our attention is invited to "concept paper" to urge that even therein duty of State Government to construct and maintain road is accepted. The actual cost of construction of road is shouldered 50% each by Central Government as also State Government. Thus, for money invested by State Government, equal amount is also invested for road construction by the Central Government. In this situation, according to him, the Central Government is not a necessary party. He has relied upon Section 5 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 to demonstrate how property of Society vests. Bye law Nos. 13.2, 13.4, 13.5.4, 13.5.7 as also provisions contained in Bye law no.34 are heavily relied upon by him to urge that the respondent no.2 Society is nothing, but, an agent of the State Government. It is a nodal agency to monitor the entire scheme. 7. Vision document is also relied upon for this purpose. Our attention is drawn to provisions of Chapter 14.3, Chapter 11 to point out that the planning of roads is left to State Government only and it is co-related and coordinated with 5 years development plan. It is therefore, perpetual work. Provisions contained in Chapter 19 are relied upon for this purpose. Chapter 40 is also pressed into service to urge that maintenance of road is an essential facet of entire PMGSY. The road is to be completed in stipulated time, and thereafter, maintained by a contractor for initial period of 5 years, thereafter duty of it's maintenance and repairs etc., shifts to local body. According to him, this activity of construction of various roads is to continue till 2025, and thereafter considering the schedule of maintenance by a contractor and by the Zilla Parishads, the work of PMGSY has to continue in any case, upto the year 2042. He therefore, argues that in this situation, the work is of permanent and perennial nature. According to him, this activity of construction of various roads is to continue till 2025, and thereafter considering the schedule of maintenance by a contractor and by the Zilla Parishads, the work of PMGSY has to continue in any case, upto the year 2042. He therefore, argues that in this situation, the work is of permanent and perennial nature. He submits that the District Panchayats play an important role in the entire scheme. 8. Our attention is invited to Central Government Road Fund Act, 2000 and the schedule appended thereto, as also 2007 Rules framed thereunder. The levy or surcharge is recovered on sale of petrol/diesel and that amount goes to Central Government, which ultimately comes to State Government for constructing and maintaining roads. In view of this statutory arrangement, Shri. Khapre, learned counsel submits that the Central Government cannot withdraw from the scheme, and as it is the obligation of the State Government, the Union of India need not be heard in challenge of this type. Rules framed in 2014 in this respect are also relied upon to point out that rural roads are covered therein. 9. To buttress his submissions, he has invited our attention to entry no.23 in List I of Schedule VII. Entry nos. 5 and 13 of List II of Schedule VII of Constitution of India, 1950 Article 243G, 11th Schedule (entry No.13) and Section 100 of Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 are also heavily relied upon. He submits that after 73rd amendment to Constitution of India, obligation or duty of Zilla Parishad to maintain rural roads cannot be compromised in any way. These rural roads are ultimately linked to district roads as per Master Plan and therefore, District Planning Committee plays an important role in this respect. 10. As respondent no.2 is a Society and an independent person, it is not amenable to jurisdiction of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. It is pointed out that the recruitment is at the level of Zilla Parishad and for that on 08.11.2006, the State Government, through its Chief Engineer (PMGSY) and Authorised Officer, has undertaken exercise of creating one post of Deputy Engineer and 5 posts of Junior Engineer in 33 Zilla Parishads in the State of Maharashtra. It is pointed out that the recruitment is at the level of Zilla Parishad and for that on 08.11.2006, the State Government, through its Chief Engineer (PMGSY) and Authorised Officer, has undertaken exercise of creating one post of Deputy Engineer and 5 posts of Junior Engineer in 33 Zilla Parishads in the State of Maharashtra. Our attention is drawn to the fact that accordingly recruitment has been made at Zilla Parishad level and hence, there is no privity of contract between the petitioners and Union of India. Advertisement for recruitment published on 24.01.2007 for the first time in this respect is also relied upon. Terms and conditions of appointment are also pressed into service by him. He contends that paying consolidated wage to petitioners is an arbitrary and high handed act. Our attention is also drawn to the Government Resolution issued on 28.02.2011 to urge that the pay scales to which the petitioners are entitled, are mentioned therein. He contends that when State Government found that petitioners were receiving comparatively lesser wages than other contract employees, upward revision was ordered by the State Government on 20.06.2012. He states that when work is of perennial nature, and permanent staff is necessary, appointing petitioners on consolidated pay is a dishonest act violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He contends that the State Government has mislead Union of India by sending it wrong documents and information. Schedule with Government Resolution dated 13.03.2013, is also relied upon by him to drive home this contention. 11. Inviting attention to the mode and manner in which petitioners have been selected through proper advertisement, roster point, interview etc., he contends that the officers who performed that exercise were and are competent to effect recruitment even in Zilla Parishad employment. The Discipline and Appeal Rules of Zilla Parishad are applicable to them and the recruitment has been made as per the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad (District Services) Recruitment Rules, 1967. Accordingly they have been appointed on probation for a period of one year. Even requirement of roaster to satisfy the reservation policy as per constitutional mandate, has been taken care of. His effort is to demonstrate that all legal formalities to effect recruitment to a permanent post in Zilla Parishad have been satisfied while recruiting petitioners, but, malafidely they have been given appointment order on contract basis for a limited period. Even requirement of roaster to satisfy the reservation policy as per constitutional mandate, has been taken care of. His effort is to demonstrate that all legal formalities to effect recruitment to a permanent post in Zilla Parishad have been satisfied while recruiting petitioners, but, malafidely they have been given appointment order on contract basis for a limited period. He points out that after PMGSY-I Scheme, PMGSY-II Scheme is also announced for the year 2013-14. Our attention is drawn to a bid document for that year published for District Wardha. Learned counsel submits that up-gradation of roads and maintenance for 5 years under PMGSY is now being outsourced. 12. According to Shri. Khapre, learned counsel, under PMGSY Scheme, last road can be laid till 2026-27, and as per time bound schedule of allocation of responsibilities of maintenance, it would be completed by 2034. Work of or allocation of responsibilities of maintenance etc. of 10 years thereafter would expire after 2042. Thus, for next 26-27 years the work is available. Therefore this work is assured, constitutional obligation of Zilla Parishads/State Government, and hence appointment has to be on permanent basis. He states that right to a road is a fundamental right of a citizen. 13. According to him, a parallel establishment has been created to victimise the petitioners, and it is unbecoming on the part of the model employer like Zilla Parishad and State Government. He submits that contract of service of petitioners has to be in consonance with Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Document filed as Annexure-36 with Writ Petition No. 2388/2015 is shown to this Court to point out that large number of vacancies in regular and permanent establishment of various Zilla Parishads. It is submitted that number of petitioners before this Court is less than total Group 'C' and 'D' vacancies available in Vidarbha Region for undertaking construction of such roads or their maintenance. 14. Communication dated 03.07.2015, sent by the State Government to various Chief Executive Officers of Zilla Parishads is also read out to show that out of total 13 Posts of Junior Engineers, sanction was given to fill in 8 posts by following prevalent procedure on contract basis. Remaining 5 posts were directed to be filled in by deputing Junior Engineers on the establishment of Zilla Parishad. Remaining 5 posts were directed to be filled in by deputing Junior Engineers on the establishment of Zilla Parishad. Thus, for regular and permanent nature of work to be performed by the Zilla Parishad, body like respondent no.2 has been formed. Permanent staff with Zilla Parishad with duty to construct and maintain roads is being shifted to respondent no.2 and additional staff is being appointed on contract basis. He therefore, states that this is nothing but, abuse of its power by the State Government and exploitation of poor and helpless petitioners. 15. Inviting attention to Government resolution dated 18.05.2015, it is contended that in furtherance of very same object, a scheme by name "Chief Minister Rural Roads Development Scheme" has been formulated and, unconstitutional and illegal treatment extended to petitioners is being continued. He submits that under said scheme, there is a direction to absorb only earthquake affected staff. Circular published by the State Government on 14.09.2015, for filling in vacant post with Zilla Parishads is also challenged by him by urging that it shows availability of permanent/regular vacancies and also work, instead of absorbing petitioners against those vacancies and allowing them to work, new persons are sought to be recruited with oblique motive. Section 253-BB of Zilla Parishad Act is pressed into service to urge that the petitioners cannot be rendered surplus and to show that Zilla Parishad is planning authority and it's role in Original Development Plan and District Plan. Support is being taken from Section 14 and other provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. 16. It is pointed out that as petitioners are helpless, they are victimised have been continued in the employment on such terms and conditions as dictated by the State Government. The terms and conditions are unconstitutional and deserve to be struck down. AIR 1986 SC 1571 , (Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd and another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another), is relied upon by him to support this contention. He further contends that the petitioners have put in continuous service of more than one year, and therefore, have also completed satisfactorily period of probation of one year stipulated in the recruitment rules of Zilla Parishad. As such, they must be deemed to have become permanent. He further contends that the petitioners have put in continuous service of more than one year, and therefore, have also completed satisfactorily period of probation of one year stipulated in the recruitment rules of Zilla Parishad. As such, they must be deemed to have become permanent. He invites attention to law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1988 SC 286 (M.K. Agrawal v. Gurgaon Gramin Bank and others), AIR 1991 SC 1681 (Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan and another), for this purpose. He submits that model employer cannot make any distinction between the temporary and permanent employees in such a situation. (2013) 14 SCC 64 (Nihal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others), is relied upon by him to buttress this submission, to demonstrate that fundamental rights cannot be waived and estoppel cannot operate in this case. He relies upon AIR 1986 SC 180 (Olga Tellis and others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others), to support his contention that State Government cannot also raise plea of acquiescence in such matters. AIR 1986 SC 847 (State of H.P. and another v. Umed Ram Sharma and others), is also relied upon to plead that duty to construct road is fundamental duty and right to road is a fundamental right of a citizen. 2015 (4) ABR 119 (High Court on its Motion v. State of Maharashtra and others), is pressed into service to show that repairs and maintenance of road is also an obligation of the State Government. 17. Without prejudice to his preliminary objection already noted supra, Shri. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel states that here the State Government is duty bound to function as per the guidelines issued by the Central Government. PMGSY is the scheme of Central Government, and as per that scheme the Central Government has on 08.01.2003 directed the State Government to constitute a separate body/society to undertake the work of PMGSY. As per that letter, and under that Scheme, the State Government in the interest of residents of State constituted respondent no.2. The object of the Society (respondent no.2) is to join all un-connected habitations having population of more than 500 and, 250 if such habitation is placed in hilly area. Rules and Regulations (bye laws) or memorandum of association of respondent no.2 is also pressed into service to show extensive control of Union of India. The object of the Society (respondent no.2) is to join all un-connected habitations having population of more than 500 and, 250 if such habitation is placed in hilly area. Rules and Regulations (bye laws) or memorandum of association of respondent no.2 is also pressed into service to show extensive control of Union of India. Obligations of respondent no.2 are prescribed by Union of India only. Provisions of Rule 25 and Rule 25.1 are also pressed into service to show determinative role of Union of India in the matter. 18. By inviting attention to various Government resolutions, it is pointed out that PMGSY is seen as a temporary scheme by the State Government, and accordingly keeping this in mind, best possible efforts to take its maximum benefit have been made. This perception that it is temporary scheme, is based on material on record and not perverse. It is contended that pleadings in petition are based upon incomplete information and documents. It is further pointed out that all advertisements under the scheme show nature of appointment to be on contract basis, and on consolidated pay. It is contended that only petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 have put in few years of service, while the remaining petitioners are fresh recruits. Posts have been created on 24.01.2001 on temporary basis and are being continued from time to time. Various documents on record granting such extension are also shown to us. Shri. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel submits that all advertisements are on contract basis, and appointments are for a period of 11 months. State Government has specifically asked its officers and Zilla Parishads to see that no other work be given to petitioners. Petitioner no.1 was appointed in the year 2007, when 198 posts were sanctioned under the scheme. Petitioner no.2 entered the scheme in the year 2010, when 1091 posts were sanctioned, other petitioners have joined in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Our attention is drawn to reply and chart filed by the State Government to show the extent of work accomplished under the scheme. By placing reliance upon paragraph no.3 of affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 vide stamp no. 6729/2015, it is submitted that most of the work is already over and very small part thereof is now left. Details of kilometers completed are given in paragraph no.4, and extent left out is given in paragraph no.6. By placing reliance upon paragraph no.3 of affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 vide stamp no. 6729/2015, it is submitted that most of the work is already over and very small part thereof is now left. Details of kilometers completed are given in paragraph no.4, and extent left out is given in paragraph no.6. It is submitted that after this small part of work is over, the scheme will be closed in less then two years. It is further pointed out that as per the directions given by the Union of India only roads to the extent of 4094 kms. in length are to be built in less than two years, but, funds could not be made available. It is further pointed out that the Chief Minister Rural Road Development Scheme is still not implemented, and nobody can be absorbed in it. Also the petitioners cannot legally be absorbed thereunder. 19. Photocopy of a State Government file containing notes and records leading to creation of posts, is pressed into service to show that no where scheme has been seen as a permanent scheme and work has never been seen as perennial work by the State Government. It is contended that as directed by the Central Government, the scheme is being implemented by creating respondent no.2-Society, and at ground level it is Zilla Parishad which monitors its execution. Our attention is also drawn to a chart submitted by the petitioners along with their petition to show the duration of service of each petitioner. 20. Our attention is invited to communication dated 02.05.2013 to urge that in PMGSY -II Scheme, road length of 2062 kms., is available. It is a distinct scheme of Union of India than PMGSY scheme under which the petitioners are functioning. Up-gradation of roads is the object and as envisaged therein, State Government invited tenders for such up-gradation through on-line bid dated 22.02.2014 at Annexure-32. It is submitted that service of petitioners cannot be used for this distinct purpose. Average life of such roads is 10 years and the State Government has to maintain roads after 5 years, as per Chapter 14 of the PMGSY Scheme. 21. It is submitted that service of petitioners cannot be used for this distinct purpose. Average life of such roads is 10 years and the State Government has to maintain roads after 5 years, as per Chapter 14 of the PMGSY Scheme. 21. Our attention is invited to a judgment reported at AIR 1999 SC 923 (Rajendra and others v. State of Rajasthan and others), particularly paragraph nos.1, 10 and 13 therein to point out how present controversy need to be dealt with (1992) 4 SCC 99 (Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi and others), (2003) 5 SCC 388 (MD, U.P. Land Development Corporation and another v. Amar Singh and others), are also relied upon to urge that there cannot be any permanent appointment in such a scheme. (2007) 2 SCC 513 (Lal Mohammad and others v. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. and others), is pressed into service to urge that there cannot be regularisation in temporary scheme. 22. Heavy reliance is placed upon judgment delivered at Aurangabad on 07.05.2015 in Writ Petition No. 4986/2015. It is contended that there very same scheme and challenge was under consideration, and if a different view is to be reached, the matter needs to be referred to Larger Bench. Support is being taken from (2015) 8 SCC 129 (P. Susella and others v. University Grants Commission and others) for this purpose. It is further submitted that after adjudication by the Aurangabad Bench, no representation has been preferred and no demands were made, therefore, no relief can be given in the present Writ Petitions. (2016) 2 SCC 653 (D.N. Jeevaraj v. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and others) particularly paragraph nos. 38 to 40 thereof are relied upon for this purpose. 23. Shri. Thakare, learned Counsel on behalf of the Zilla Parishad, adopts the argument of Shri. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel. He contends that as all advertisements were for filling in posts on contract basis and on fixed salary, several more qualified aspirants did not apply, and hence, petitioners cannot be absorbed in this manner. According to him, adhering to qualifications or following the procedure prescribed in recruitment rules, and maintaining roaster, are normal considerations in public employment and adherence therewith does not clothe the petitioners with any right to posts. 24. According to him, adhering to qualifications or following the procedure prescribed in recruitment rules, and maintaining roaster, are normal considerations in public employment and adherence therewith does not clothe the petitioners with any right to posts. 24. In his reply arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners states that perusal of the complete vision document reveals that work envisaged therein is of permanent nature and to be performed by either State Government or Zilla Parishad. It is contended that note sheets produced by the State Government show that the State Government has not honoured the confidence placed in it by the Union of India, and it is paying less salary to petitioners. It is pointed out that the State Government has to employ its own staff and that staff must get proper salary and service conditions. The complete scheme document is pressed into service to show the phases in which work progresses. It is urged that PMGSY-I and PMGSY-II are complementary to each other. It is further submitted that as per page 7 Clause 31 of this complete scheme document, it is co-related with 13th 5 year plan and adherence to Labour Laws is must. The roads vest in District Panchayat and unnecessarily temporary posts have been created when it is permanent job of Zilla Parishad. Shri. Khapre, learned Counsel submits that the first letter of State Government to the Union of India does not mention the appointments as on contract basis and stipulates regular pay scales. This has been done with an oblique motive to induce Union of India to part with funds/grants. 25. Shri. Khapre, learned Counsel submits that in present matters, all three conditions stipulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi ( AIR 2006 SC 1806 ) are satisfied, and hence deletion of one condition from appointment order of petitioners is sufficient to grant them complete relief. By way of abundant precaution, he adds that this court has to decide whether the petitioners can be absorbed in employment of State Government or then Zilla Parishads. 26. He points out that in Writ Petitions, commencement of work under Chief Minister Rural Road Development Scheme is, specifically asserted on affidavit and it has not been denied Our attention is invited to Annexure 41, which is a Government resolution dated 18.05.2011, whereby sanction has been given to a account head in that scheme. 26. He points out that in Writ Petitions, commencement of work under Chief Minister Rural Road Development Scheme is, specifically asserted on affidavit and it has not been denied Our attention is invited to Annexure 41, which is a Government resolution dated 18.05.2011, whereby sanction has been given to a account head in that scheme. It is however, submitted that arrangements made are exactly as per PMGSY Scheme. It is pointed out that Union of India has allotted amount of Rs. 19,000 Crores in the financial year 2016-17 and hence, the funds are very much available. Shri. Khapre, learned Counsel submits that very same work therefore, continues. AIR 2008 SC 876 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia and another) is pressed into service by him to urge that in this situation, for present purposes, purposive interpretation must be adopted and provisions contained in Rule 6 of the Zilla Parishad (District Recruitment) Rules, must be read accordingly. 27. After careful deliberations, we find merit in preliminary objection raised by the State. As Union of India is not before us, We restrict our consideration to put forth the reasons for this conclusion. 28. From arguments of parties, it is apparent that funds are coming from Central Government i.e. from Union of India under a Scheme which is styled as Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna. PMGSY-II or Chief Minister Rural Road Development Scheme are subsequent schemes. Petitioners do not seek any declaration in relation to Chief Minister's Rural Road Development Scheme. Paragraph no.2 of the writ petition shows that the Central Government prepared a plan for construction of roads in order to connect all villages by road. These roads are supposed to be usable all the year round and PMGSY was accordingly declared on 25.12.2000. It is stated that the respondent no.1 in order to further implement this scheme established respondent no.2. However, respondent no.1 has established that as per this Government resolution dated 08.05.2003, because of mandate of said PMGSY Scheme, it has to constitute respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 has been registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act. This disclosure by the respondent no.1 has not been disputed by the petitioners. Memorandum of Association or bye laws of respondent no.2 are on record, and role of Union of India or Central Government in the implementation of PMGSY scheme is apparent from it. Respondent no.2 has been registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act. This disclosure by the respondent no.1 has not been disputed by the petitioners. Memorandum of Association or bye laws of respondent no.2 are on record, and role of Union of India or Central Government in the implementation of PMGSY scheme is apparent from it. Entire fund comes from Central Government, but, day to day activity is to be managed by the respondent no.2. Petitioners contend that though nature of work under PMGSY is permanent, in order to deny them the benefit of permanency, State Government for the first time, under Circular 24.08.2011 mentioned that these posts are temporary in nature. According to them, scheme has to last maximum for 25 years and at least till the year 2041, as stated in paragraph no.19 of the Writ Petition. 29. The bye laws or Memorandum of Association of respondent no.2 at Annexure-4 shows that it has got an independent governing body and executive committee. The governing body has to administer and manage the affairs as per the guidelines formulated by the Government of India. As per Clause 13, it has to receive funds from Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India. Property vests in Governing body as per guidelines issued by the Government of India, and if any amendment to Rules becomes necessary, it has to be as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India. As per Rule 34, Governing body can dissolve respondent no.2 with prior approval of the State Government. The corpus and management of society after dissolution vests in State Government. Material on record reveals that funds are released by the Central Government every year and that release cannot be controlled by the State Government or any Zilla Parishad. Petitioners have urged that the Central Government cannot withdraw from such scheme, however, in absence of Central Government or Union of India, as party before this Court, we cannot pronounce upon it. On the contrary, it appears that it is the respondent no.2 who has proceeded to implement the scheme, and for it, the staff is provided by authorised officer and Chief Engineer (PMGSY) of State Government. Communication dated 08.11.2006, in this respect clearly points out that posts were to be filled in on contract basis for one year on consolidated salary. Advertisements have also been published accordingly. 30. Communication dated 08.11.2006, in this respect clearly points out that posts were to be filled in on contract basis for one year on consolidated salary. Advertisements have also been published accordingly. 30. Life of posts has been thereafter extended every year by the State Government. Initially only 198 posts were created, but, perusal of Government resolution dated 22.01.2010 shows that number of posts was increased to 1091, and their tenure was extended upto 28.02.2010. 31. Though petitioners contend that State Government has misled Union of India by suppressing from it, the fact that it has provided staff on contract basis, we find material on record insufficient to conclude accordingly. The communications on which the petitioners have placed reliance specifically mention pay scale which is admissible against each post., State also points out the consolidated pay being paid to the incumbent. The relevant documents like Government resolutions dated 20.02.2011, 10.02.2012, 13.03.2013 specifically mentions posts to be temporary. When the Central Government is not releasing any grants for payment of salary to this staff, the contention of petitioners that State Government has misled Central Government in this respect, is without any substance. If the petitioners wanted to demonstrate that Central Government was dwelling under wrong impression, and therefore was induced to release the funds, they ought to have approached the Central Government with this grievance. They ought to have impleaded the Union of India as party respondent to bring on record the alleged fraud played on it. 32. The Scheme is formulated by the Central Government and it is releasing funds to State Government. As directed by the Central Government, respondent no.2 has been constituted as a separate society/body to actually execute the works with the assistance of various Zilla Parishads. In this situation, if we have to consider various legal provisions, including the provisions of Constitution of India and Labour Laws or other welfare provisions. Effective adjudication in this respect is not possible without hearing Union of India. Funds which can be released to State Government and to Zilla Parishads for discharging their statutory or constitutional obligations are and must be distinct from the funds released under PMGSY. The petitioners have not pointed out that except for works under PMGSY, no work of road construction is being undertaken by any Zilla Parishad or by State Government. Funds which can be released to State Government and to Zilla Parishads for discharging their statutory or constitutional obligations are and must be distinct from the funds released under PMGSY. The petitioners have not pointed out that except for works under PMGSY, no work of road construction is being undertaken by any Zilla Parishad or by State Government. Whether funds released under PMGSY are additional funds with a particular object in mind and Central Government (Union of India) is competent to release such funds for construction of year-round usable roads in rural parts of India is the cardinal issue. If petitioners are correct, we have to hold that the work is available perennially, and hence, Union of India is under obligation to release grants therefor forever. However, that does not appear to be the scheme. Boost to rural economy and therefore connecting otherwise small and remote rural habitations is the object of Central Government. We can not find fault with this object behind the back of Union of India. We cannot expect Union of India to release such funds for all times to time without hearing it. State Government can not force the Union of India to provide the money for ever or for particular rural or other road. The State can not also assail the scheme as framed or policy decision of the Union of India. State can not amend the scheme by urging that its constitutional obligation is being encroached upon by the Union of India. It can not refuse to form a society like respondent 2. 33. Source from which the funds are arranged or should have been procured by the Union of India, how or under what head or for which purpose such funds should have been released by the Union of India, duration of such release, the collusion, if any, between State Government or Union of India, alleged design to cheat the employees like petitioners are some of the relevant factors which can not be looked into by us in absence of the Union of India. Declaration that PMGSY is sham or bogus devise, exercise to lift the veil of incorporation to find out whether State Government or Zilla Parishad is real employer all warrant an opportunity of hearing to the Central Government. Even impact of alleged similar challenge on present adjudication and dismissal of Writ Petition Nos. Declaration that PMGSY is sham or bogus devise, exercise to lift the veil of incorporation to find out whether State Government or Zilla Parishad is real employer all warrant an opportunity of hearing to the Central Government. Even impact of alleged similar challenge on present adjudication and dismissal of Writ Petition Nos. 4896 and 4988 of 2015 by the Aurangabad Bench of this Court on 07.05.2015 can not be effectively looked into behind the back of Union of India. No financial burden or the obligation can be cast upon Central Government directly or indirectly in this adjudication. No discussion either on law or on fact can be undertaken without Union of India. The petitioners did not get wise though the preliminary objection was raised and argued at length by Shri. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel. 34. We therefore, find that the preliminary objection raised by the State Government is just, proper and sustainable. Upholding the same, we dismiss these writ petitions, for not joining Union of India as a party respondent. No costs. 35. At this stage, Shri. Khapre and Shri. Kalmegh, learned Counsel for the petitioners seek continuation of the interim orders for a period of three months to enable the petitioners to take further appropriate steps. The said request is being opposed by Shri. Fulzele, learned Addl. G.P. as also Shri. Thakare, learned Counsel for respondents. 36. The petitioners are being continued since long and interim orders granted by this Court are operative. Even when matters were argued, the respondents have pointed out that work may continue for some time in future. 37. In this situation, we continue the interim orders for a period of three months more from today. The same shall cease to operate automatically thereafter.