Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2425 (BOM)

Sandip v. State of Maharashtra

2019-10-22

R.K.DESHPANDE, VINAY JOSHI

body2019
JUDGMENT : R.K. Deshpande, J. The State of Maharashtra through its Department of Higher and Technical Education decided to take over Nagar Parishad Polytechnic, Achalpur, District Amravati, which was being run on "no-grant" basis since 1983 and hence by the Government Resolution dated 6-7-2017, its name was changed to Government Polytechnic, Achalpur, District Amravati. By another Government Resolution dated 18-11-2017, the said Polytechnic along with all its assets and liabilities were taken over by the State Government. About 21 Lecturers and 22 non-teaching employees working therein were absorbed in Government service and they are continued as regular permanent employees. 2. The petitioners, who are total 8 Lecturers working in Nagar Parishad Polytechnic, Achalpur, on contract basis for the period ranging from two years and nine months to eight years during 8-7-2009 to 25-7-2014, were excluded from absorption and hence they have approached this Court claiming the relief of providing the same treatment of absorption as per the Government Resolution dated 18-11-2017 in Government service as Lecturers in Government Polytechnic, Achalpur. All the petitioners are out of employment with effect from 30-4-2017, when they were terminated from the service of Nagar Parishad Polytechnic, Achalpur. These petitions, therefore, claim the relief of setting aside their termination and reinstatement in service by way of absorption with effect on 18-11-2017. 3. The contention of Shri Ram Parsodkar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these petitions, inviting our attention to a list of 21 Lecturers absorbed in Government service as per the Government Resolution dated 18-11-2017, is that the Lecturers, namely, Pankaj Ramvilas Boob, appointed on 22-7-2013; Nilesh Shekhar Jadhav, appointed on 27-7-2010; Swati Ganeshrao Dhoke, appointed on 3-9-2010; Namrata Nandkishor Daga, appointed 26-7-2004; Kunal Anil Saurkar, appointed on 17-12-2007; Ranjana Vishwas Gavai, appointed on 17-12-2007; Yogesh Uttamrao Futane, appointed on 26-7-2013; Ashwin Shivcharan Meshram, appointed on 3-8-2009; Chetna Dilip Shete, appointed on 13-7-2009; and Satish Arunrao Khadse, appointed on 17-12-2007, were recruited in the service of Nagar Parishad Polytechnic on purely temporary basis for specific period, containing almost the same terms and conditions, on which the petitioners were appointed, but the petitioners are denied the same treatment and, therefore, the action of denial of absorption violates the guarantee of the petitioners, contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. 4. The respondent- State, represented by Shri L.M. Acharya, the learned Special Counsel; and the Municipal Council, Achalpur, represented by Shri Amol Patil, the learned counsel, have strongly opposed the claim of the petitioners. When all these matters were initially heard by this Court at length on 26-9-2019 and after going through the replies filed, we could not notice the stand taken by the State Government that the Lecturers absorbed, were subjected to fresh selection and appointment in Government service. The stand taken by the State Government on affidavit is that the Lecturers absorbed, were regularly appointed by the erstwhile employer (Nagar Parishad, Achalpur). According to them, the regular appointment means the selection by the Competent Selection Committee, consisting of the statutory Standing Committee of the Nagar Parishad and the Subject Experts, appointed by the Director of Technical Education as per the letter dated 31-8-2001, prevailing during the period from 2007 to 2012. Further, according to them, the appointments in the year 2012 and onwards, were made in accordance with the procedure for approval of Lecturers in the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) approved Polytechnics by the Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education. All these appointments were approved by the Director of Technical Education. 5. We were surprised to note the stand taken by the State Government on affidavit that the Lecturers absorbed, were appointed by the aforesaid procedure and that they were confirmed in service by Nagar Parishad Polytechnic. At that time, the State Government was not in picture and the appointments were made by the Municipal Council, Achalpur, which can only make such statement with authority. Normally, the regular appointments in the establishment of the Municipal Council are done in the posts which are sanctioned by the Director of Municipal Administration in exercise of his statutory power conferred by Section 76 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 ("the said Act"). In the absence of such sanction, neither the posts are created nor there can be regular appointment on any of the establishments of the Municipal Council. There are regular statutory recruitment rules framed by the Municipal Council, consisting the requirement of the selection through the duly constituted Selection Committee and making appointments. The staffing pattern was also required to be approved. 6. There are regular statutory recruitment rules framed by the Municipal Council, consisting the requirement of the selection through the duly constituted Selection Committee and making appointments. The staffing pattern was also required to be approved. 6. We also noticed that there was no question of the Lecturers appointed prior to 2001 in Nagar Parishad Polytechnic, Achalpur, undergoing the process of selection through the Selection Committee, constituted as per the instructions dated 31-8-2001 or thereafter. We, therefore, passed an order on 26-9-2019, the relevant portion contained in Para 7 is reproduced below : "7] We defer the dictation of this judgment for a period of one week so as to enable Municipal Council to file proper affidavit on record giving the factual position as is assured to us, which includes - (i) as to whether all the posts in Polytechnic Institute were sanction under Section 76 of the said Act by the Director of Municipal Administration; (ii) whether the procedure for recruitment as prescribed in the statutory Recruitment Rules of the Municipal Council, if any, was followed while making the appointments to the teaching and non-teaching posts in the Polytechnic Institute; (iii) whether the teachers absorbed by G.R. dated 18.11.2017 were made permanent or confirmed in service or if their services are regularized by separate order, to produce the same on record." 7. In response to the aforesaid order, the Municipal Council, Achalpur, has filed an affidavit stating that since the Polytechnic was being run on "no-grant basis", it was being managed by the Municipal Council through its own funds and, therefore, the sanction under Section 76 of the Act from the Director of Municipal Administration was not required. It is also the specific stand taken that the appointments were also not made as per the statutory Recruitment Rules of the Municipal Council. The entire staff, teaching and non-teaching, were appointed during 1985 to 2013 by following different sets of rules and instructions. The two appointments made in the year 1985, were by following the norms and procedure followed by the Government Polytechnic in respect of advertisement, age, qualifications and pay-scale. The Standing Committee of the Municipal Council conducted the interview for selection. The entire staff, teaching and non-teaching, were appointed during 1985 to 2013 by following different sets of rules and instructions. The two appointments made in the year 1985, were by following the norms and procedure followed by the Government Polytechnic in respect of advertisement, age, qualifications and pay-scale. The Standing Committee of the Municipal Council conducted the interview for selection. For making appointments during 1988 to 2007, the posts were created and filled in as per the norms prescribed by the AICTE, and from 2007, the Director of Technical Education started giving approval to the appointments made in the Polytechnic. It is also the stand taken that the selections were made by conducting interviews, from 2007 onwards, after getting approval from the Director of Technical Education and following the roster point. 8. In response to the question as to whether the Lecturers absorbed by the Government Resolution dated 18-11-2017 were made permanent and confirmed in service or if their services are regularized by separate orders, to produce the same on record, the stand is taken in the affidavit as under : "(a) In this regard it is most humbly submitted that all the appointments made right from 1985 were initially made as temporary appointments for a particular period of time and which were granted extension from time to time. That though these appointments (absorbed teachers) were made for a limited period of time, however the same were made in pay scale and following roster point. The appointments were initially made temporary since the posts were not fixed as the same varied according to the students strength in the College. That ultimately the Standing Committee in its meeting dated 21.05.2004 passed a resolution that all those employees who have put in continuous 15 years of service or more, such employees only be made permanent. That the regularisation/permanency will be granted in phase manner. Hereto annexed and marked as ANNEXURE NO.R4 is the copy of the said resolution passed in meeting dated 21.05.2004." "(b) That applying the above decision of the standing committee initially 13 employees were made permanent in service. That the regularisation/permanency will be granted in phase manner. Hereto annexed and marked as ANNEXURE NO.R4 is the copy of the said resolution passed in meeting dated 21.05.2004." "(b) That applying the above decision of the standing committee initially 13 employees were made permanent in service. Hereto annexed and marked as ANNEXURE NO.R5 is the copy of the order dated 01.06.2004." "(c) It is most humbly submitted that this practice was continued and the employees who have not completed 15 years of service their services were continued/extended for further 2 years and those who have completed 15 years of service were granted permanency in service. Hereto annexed and marked as ANNEXURE NO.R6 collectively are the copies of extension orders and permanency orders." "(f) The Respondent No.4 college issued a letter to the Director of technical education, Mumbai dated 14.08.2007 and requested to grant approval to the appointments made and confirmed by the College. The Director of Technical Education, Mumbai was pleased to direct to get the roster approved from Assistant Commissioner of Backward Cell, Amravati and also directed the Joint Director of Technical Education, Amravati to approve the posts in the College as per the instructions dated 31.08.2001 and also as per the norms and guidelines of AICTE. Hereto annexed and marked as ANNEXURE NO.R9 is the copy of the letter dated 18.09.2007." Thus, the stand is that the confirmation of Lecturers as per the resolution passed by the Standing Committee on 21-5-2004 was approved by the Director of Technical Education. It is the stand taken that the appointments of the persons absorbed were on regular pay-scale, though the same were on temporary basis. 9. So far as the petitioners in all these petitions are concerned, it is the stand taken by the respondents that the advertisement in response to which they were appointed, clearly stated that the appointments are to be made on contract basis on consolidated pay and not in regular pay and the roster for making appointments was not followed. It is the stand taken that though the petitioner No.1 Archana Bonde was not qualified as per the AICTE norms, still she was appointed on contract basis, and the petitioner No.5 Ratnamala Bobde was age-barred and not qualified. It is the further stand taken that Sandip Goswami, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2486 of 2017, was not qualified as per the norms of the AICTE. It is the further stand taken that Sandip Goswami, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2486 of 2017, was not qualified as per the norms of the AICTE. The appointments made on contract basis, therefore, cannot be equated with those made on regular basis. 10. We have seen the advertisements against which the petitioners were appointed on contract basis, issued from time to time; the first advertisement being of 26-5-2009, and all other advertisements were also similar, inviting applications for temporary posts of Lecturers in different subjects to be filled on ad hoc basis on consolidated pay, as approved by the Municipal Council, with a clause that the qualifications can be relaxed. The Standing Committee of the Municipal Council, statutorily constituted, conducted the selection of the petitioners on different dates and the orders of appointments were issued on the basis of the resolution passed in such meeting. The orders of appointments made it clear that the appointments are on temporary contract basis for a period of one session on consolidated pay. All the orders of appointments contained the same terms, including that the services can be terminated at any point of time, if it is found that the same are not required, and that it shall not confer any right to claim regularization in service. 11. We have also seen the advertisements issued from time to time, inviting applications, in response to which, the Lecturers absorbed were appointed. All these advertisements, right from 2004 onwards, are similar in nature, containing specific reservations of posts. The orders of appointments of the Lecturers absorbed are also identical, containing the clauses that (i) the appointments is in pay-scale on purely temporary basis for a period of one session, as recommended by the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation, and (ii) the terms and conditions applicable to the employees in Municipal Council shall also be applicable to them. The resolution passed by the Standing Committee for making their appointments indicate that the roster point was followed. The same method was followed for continuing all the persons absorbed till their absorption in Government service. 12. We now proceed to examine the question of denial of absorption of the petitioners as Lecturers, in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 18-11-2017, in Government Polytechnic, as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. The same method was followed for continuing all the persons absorbed till their absorption in Government service. 12. We now proceed to examine the question of denial of absorption of the petitioners as Lecturers, in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 18-11-2017, in Government Polytechnic, as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. The staffing pattern in any of the establishments of the Municipal Council for making regular appointments in the posts, can only be by creation of such posts with the sanction of the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, in exercise of his power under Section 76 of the said Act. The regular appointments in the posts so sanctioned, can only be made in accordance with the statutory recruitment rules framed by the Municipal Council. The establishment of the Nagar Parishad Polytechnic, Achalpur, was governed by the provision of Section 76 of the said Act and the statutory recruitment rules framed and existed for making regular appointments in the establishment. Merely because the establishment of the Nagar Parishad Polytechnic, Achalpur, was being run on "no-grant basis", cannot be an exception to it. In our view, the stand of the Municipal Council, in its affidavit that the establishment of the Polytechnic was not governed by Section 76 of the said Act and that the statutory recruitment rules were not applicable for making regular appointments, cannot be accepted. 14. The Municipal Council, Achalpur, started the Nagar Parishad Polytechnic at Achalpur in the year 1983, and since then it continued to run on "no-grant basis" till it was taken over by the State Government on 18-11-2017. It is admitted position that none of the posts of Lecturers existing in it, were created with the sanction of the Regional Director of Municipal Administration in exercise of his statutory power conferred by Section 76 of the said Act. It is also an admitted position that none of the appointments in the teaching posts in the Nagar Parishad Polytechnic were made by following the procedure for selection and appointment, laid down under the statutory recruitment rules. It is also an admitted position that none of the appointments in the teaching posts in the Nagar Parishad Polytechnic were made by following the procedure for selection and appointment, laid down under the statutory recruitment rules. We, therefore, conclude that all the appointments made in the teaching posts were neither in the posts sanctioned under Section 76 of the said Act nor by following the recruitment rules and hence the distinction sought to be made that the appointments of the Lecturers absorbed were the "regular appointments" or can be called as the "appointed as the regular employees", is unsustainable. 15. It is the stand of the State Government in its affidavit that all 22 Lecturers absorbed in Government service, were confirmed in regular scale in the services of the Municipal Council prior to their absorption on 18-11-2017. However, Annexure R-2 and Annexure R-4 to the affidavit dated 3-10-2019 filed by the Municipal Council, Achalpur, indicates the resolution dated 21-5-2004 is in respect of confirmation of services of only 9 Lecturers appointed prior to 2001. All of them were confirmed by the orders dated on 1-6-2004, 19-11-2012, 26-4-2013 and 28-4-2016. There is neither any resolution nor any order in respect of confirmation of 13 Lecturers absorbed in Government service, who were appointed on 23-7-2001 onwards, till 26-7-2013. It is obvious that total 12 Lecturers, viz. (1) N.N. Daga, (2) N.S. Udapurkar, (3) S.M. Inwate, (4) K.A. Saurkar, (5) S.A. Khadse, (6) R.V. Gavai, (7) C.D.Shete, (8) A.S. Meshram, (9) N.S. Jadhav, (10) S.G. Dhoke, (11) P.R. Boob, and (12) Y.U. Futane did not complete 15 years of service for confirmation as per the resolution dated 21-5-2004 passed by the Standing Committee of the Municipal Council, Achalpur, on the date of their absorption on 18-11-2017. Thus, the stand of the respondents that all the Lecturers absorbed were confirmed in the service of the Municipal Council, Achalpur, cannot be accepted. 16. It is an admitted position that all the appointments of Lecturers - whether in consolidated pay on contract basis or in regular scale on temporary basis - were made by following different procedure, which the Municipal Council thought it fit and proper in the situation then existing, as per the requirement from time to time during 7-10-1985 to 25-7-2014. 16. It is an admitted position that all the appointments of Lecturers - whether in consolidated pay on contract basis or in regular scale on temporary basis - were made by following different procedure, which the Municipal Council thought it fit and proper in the situation then existing, as per the requirement from time to time during 7-10-1985 to 25-7-2014. In fact, all selections and appointments of 12 Lecturers on temporary basis in the Nagar Parishad Polytechnic prior to 2001 were made by the Standing Committee of the Municipal Council. During the period from 2001 to 2012, the Standing Committee was associated by the subject expert as per the letter dated 31-8-2001 issued by the Director of Technical Education to select 11 Lecturers for appointments on temporary basis. It is the stand of the respondents that two appointments made after 2012 were in accordance with the procedure for approval of Lecturers on temporary basis, adopted by the Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education, said to have been approved by the AICTE. All these appointments on temporary basis are approved by the Director of Technical Education. It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept that the Lecturers absorbed in Government service on 18-11-2017 stood on better position than the petitioners in all these petitions. 17. We have gone through the orders of appointments of the petitioners in consolidated pay on contract basis and also the orders of appointments of the Lecturers absorbed in Government service on 18-11-2017. Their appointments were also on purely temporary basis in the temporary posts, for a period of one session, without conferring any right of regularization in service. Their services were also extended from time to time, as was done in the case of the present petitioners. All the Lecturers, including those absorbed on 18-11-2017, were terminated from service on 30-4-2017. Thus, all the Lecturers were similarly situated, as their appointments were on temporary basis in the temporary posts, for specified duration. We, therefore, conclude that merely because the petitioners are shown to have been appointed in consolidated pay on contract basis, that would constitute a valid criteria to create a classification for absorption in Government service. 18. Thus, all the Lecturers were similarly situated, as their appointments were on temporary basis in the temporary posts, for specified duration. We, therefore, conclude that merely because the petitioners are shown to have been appointed in consolidated pay on contract basis, that would constitute a valid criteria to create a classification for absorption in Government service. 18. So far as the claim of the respondents that the policy of reservation was followed while making appointments of Lecturers absorbed in Government service is concerned, it is significant to note that the stand of the respondents is that the roster was approved for the first time in the year 2007 and prior to it, at least 16 appointments made on temporary basis, were continued till the absorption. Only 3 appointments were made from the Other Backward Class category on 17-12-2007, and 5 appointments were made from the other reserved categories. All such appointments upon absorption are adjusted against the roster sanctioned in the year 2007. Some of the petitioners belong to reserved category and they can be accommodated in the roster point accordingly, as has been done in the case of the Lecturers absorbed in Government service. This cannot, therefore, be the reason to say that the appointments of the Lecturers absorbed were the regular appointments. 19. We find that before absorption of Lecturers in Government service, a report was called from the Municipal Council, Achalpur, to consider the financial implications arising out of taking over of the Polytechnic Institute by the State Government. The report submitted on 11-8-2016 by the Municipal Council to the State Government indicates that the Director of Technical Education has granted his online sanction on 3-6-2016 for filling in 50 posts of Lecturers. The number of Lecturers available in the Polytechnic Institute is shown as 33, which is inclusive of 8 Lecturers working on contract basis, who are the petitioners in all these petitions. Their dates of appointments and qualifications are also specified. The stand of the State of Maharashtra in Para 6 of its affidavit dated 25-9-2018 is that there is a requirement of 41 posts in the Polytechnic Institute and it is awaiting the sanction of the Government. The proposal is to increase the sanctioned strength from existing 25 teaching posts to 41 teaching posts. The stand of the State of Maharashtra in Para 6 of its affidavit dated 25-9-2018 is that there is a requirement of 41 posts in the Polytechnic Institute and it is awaiting the sanction of the Government. The proposal is to increase the sanctioned strength from existing 25 teaching posts to 41 teaching posts. Thus, the existence of posts even on the date of absorption and the requirement of Lecturers over and above those actually absorbed and working in the Polytechnic Institute, is not in dispute. 20. Going to the root of the matter, what we find is that there was no valid criteria adopted for making the appointments in consolidated pay on contract basis or in regular pay on temporary basis. All the Lecturers - whether absorbed or unabsorbed - were appointed in the clear full-time vacancies and continued in service on purely temporary basis on a fixed period, which was extended from time to time for a specific duration. They were selected for appointments by the Selection Committee constituted by different sets of administrative instructions, having no force of law. All the appointments were continued for years together without creation of the posts and obtaining sanction of the Regional Director of Municipal Administration under Section 76 of the said Act. None of the Lecturers were appointed in accordance with the statutory recruitment rules existing at the relevant time. The roster for reservation of the posts was approved for the first time in the year 2007, but the copy of which was not produced on record. All the Lecturers were terminated from service with effect from 30-4-2017. Merely because the Director of Technical Education has granted approval to certain appointments, that by itself would not attach authenticity of making such appointments. The Lecturers, who were not confirmed in service, are absorbed in Government service after termination. It is not the case that before absorption, they were required to undergo the fresh process of recruitment in Government service. We, therefore, do not find the existence of any intelligible differentia to make classification of the Lecturers, who are grouped together for absorption in Government service and those who are left out, having no nexus with the object of protecting the services of the Lecturers employed in the Nagar Parishad Polytechnic, Achalpur, as per the Government Resolution dated 18-11-2017. We, therefore, do not find the existence of any intelligible differentia to make classification of the Lecturers, who are grouped together for absorption in Government service and those who are left out, having no nexus with the object of protecting the services of the Lecturers employed in the Nagar Parishad Polytechnic, Achalpur, as per the Government Resolution dated 18-11-2017. The denial of the claim for absorption of the petitioners, who are similarly situated, in our view, is clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which cannot, therefore, be sustained. 21. In the aforesaid background, the question of discrimination in denying the claim of absorption of the petitioners in Government service on 18-11-2017, needs to be considered. The question required to be considered is whether the appointments of the petitioners was a back-door entry in the posts of Lecturers in the Polytechnic Institute. Obviously, our answer would be in the negative. Both the sets of Lecturers - one who are absorbed in Government service and the other who are denied absorption - were in response to the advertisement issued in the newspaper, giving an opportunity to all the qualified and eligible persons to compete for such employment. The petitioners have acquired experience of teaching in the same Institute, ranging between 2 years and 9 months to 8 years. It is not the case that the Lecturers absorbed were appointed in the posts sanctioned by the Director of Municipal Administration in exercise of his power under Section 76 of the said Act. It is also not the case that the Lecturers absorbed were appointed by following the statutory rules for recruitment of employees in the services of the Municipal Council. All the Lecturers absorbed and unabsorbed were appointed on temporary basis for fixed period. They were all similarly situated and no valid distinction could be made to deny the petitioners, absorption in Government service. 22. We are considering the position which existed as on 18-11-2017, when the Nagar Parishad Polytechnic, Achalpur, was taken over by the State Government. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner No.1- Archana Bonde was not possessing the qualifications as per the AICTE norms. She is having qualification of M.Sc. in Applied Physics, but according to the respondents, the Lecturer must possess B.E. in Electronics. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner No.1- Archana Bonde was not possessing the qualifications as per the AICTE norms. She is having qualification of M.Sc. in Applied Physics, but according to the respondents, the Lecturer must possess B.E. in Electronics. Similarly, the objection is regarding the qualification of the petitioner No.5- Ratnamala Bobde, who is having M.A. in English in third division, whereas the requirement is of possessing B+ Grade. Shri Parsodkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioner No.5 is not interested in pursuing the claim in the petition. The change in the staffing pattern was adopted in the year 2018, that is subsequent to the absorption of the petitioners. The Lecturer - Student ratio is changed from 1 : 20 to 1 : 25, and the same will not have any bearing to consider the position which prevailed at the time of absorption. Some of the petitioners belong to the reserved category and hence they can be adjusted upon absorption against the reserved vacancies as per the roster, as has been done in the case of the Lecturers who are absorbed. 23. In view of the aforesaid position, these petitions are allowed the following order is passed : (1) The respondents-the State Government and the Director of Technical Education are directed to absorb the petitioners, except the petitioner No.5- Ratnamala Bode, as Lecturers in the Government Polytechnic, Achalpur, with effect from 18-11-2017, that is the date on which the other similarly situated Lecturers were absorbed, and grant them the status of permanent employees with continuity in service on par with those absorbed within a period of three months from today. (2) The relief in terms of clause (1) above shall be subject to verification of the qualifications of the petitioner No.1- Archana Bonde in terms of the criteria prevailing as on 18-11-2017 and she can be absorbed in the subject in which she possesses the Master's Degree in Science, if such post is available or admissible in the establishment of the Government Polytechnic, Achalpur. (3) The petitioners shall be entitled to all such reliefs as are made available to the Lecturers absorbed in the Government Polytechnic, Achalpur, with effect from 18-11-2017, except the arrears of salary from that date till the date of absorption. 24. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. (3) The petitioners shall be entitled to all such reliefs as are made available to the Lecturers absorbed in the Government Polytechnic, Achalpur, with effect from 18-11-2017, except the arrears of salary from that date till the date of absorption. 24. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. 25. At this stage, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the operation of this judgment be suspended for a period of four weeks. However, we do not find any reason to suspend the judgment, as the respondents are already granted three months' time to take steps in the matter for absorption of the petitioners in service. The prayer is, therefore, rejected.