Facts: The petitioners, initially appointed as daily wage clerks in the Parbhani Municipal Council, were later regularized. They sought benefits from their initial appointment dates, but the Municipal Commissioner cancelled orders granting them clerk pay scales from those dates, directing benefits from the regularization date instead. The petitioners had previously filed writ petitions seeking regularization, which were disposed of with a clarification that their employment terms would be governed by conditions applicable to regular employees. The petitioners allegedly misrepresented facts and exerted pressure to obtain favorable orders.
Procedural Posture: The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the Municipal Commissioner's order that cancelled earlier orders granting them pay scales from their initial appointment dates. The High Court was hearing this writ petition.
Issue: Are the petitioners entitled to have the impugned order quashed, thereby receiving pay scale benefits from their initial dates of appointment as daily wage clerks, despite their subsequent regularization and undertakings not to claim monetary benefits from their past daily-wage service?
Holding: No, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners are not entitled to claim monetary benefits from their past service, and the impugned order cancelling those benefits is deemed legal, correct, and proper.
Reasoning: The Court found that the petitioners had secured earlier orders through misrepresentation and pressure tactics. They had suppressed material facts, including their undertakings not to claim past service benefits. The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and equitable, and litigants approaching the court with unclean hands are not entitled to relief. The Court also noted that the regularization order of 31.08.2001 was a one-time measure with specific conditions, including the abolition of posts upon retirement and the non-consideration of prior daily wage service for monetary benefits. The Court strongly deprecated the petitioners' conduct.