Municipality"). They further claim that the private respondent nos. 7 to 31 were also appointed in the said municipality during the period 1991 to 2000. The petitioners claim that their names along with the names of the respondent nos. 7 to 31 were included in the list of 268 casual/ daily rated workers who were engaged for not less than 10 years as on 01.04.2010 and have rendered service for not less than 240 days each year. The petitioners further claim that they are entitled to get approval from the date of their respective dates of appointment in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) reported at (2006) 4 SCC 1 . Petitioners alleged that the Director of Local Bodies (for short "DLB") accorded approval of appointment of the private respondents vide letter dated 10.02.2020. Petitioners allege that though the petitioners and private respondents were all appointed as casual workers and doing same nature of work, the action of the DLB is discriminatory as the petitioners' appointments were not approved when the appointments of similarity situated casual workers were approved.
