1.wp.6817-99 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6817 OF 1999 1. Mr.Chander Leelaram Rajai, 2. Mrs.Neelam Tejwani, & 3. Mrs.Vijaya Rokade. ..Petitioners. -Versus- 1. The Punjaba Sevak Sabha, 2. The Gurunanak High School, through its Head master, 3. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Thane. ..Respondents. ... Mr.K.H. Dhuldhwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P. for the State. Mr.S.P. Kanuga, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2. ... CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : 16th JULY, 2009. P.C. :- 1. The petitioners come to this Court after some of the persons succeeded in Writ Petitions, who were similarly placed as the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 claims benefit from 1992, petitioner No.2 claims benefit from 1994 and petitioner No. 3 claims benefit from 1989. This Writ Petition came to be filed in December, 1999. One of the petitioner was late by 10 years, another is late by 5 years and another is late by 7 years. They were perhaps waiting for others to succeed and, thereafter they came to this Court when this Court decided the matter in 1.wp.6817-99 2 the year 1997. Infact they took two years to come to this Court after the judgment of this Court in the case of Mrs.Vaishali V. Chandekar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others decided on 9th September, 1997. 2. The Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Lal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 538, in which the Supreme Court has held that delay disentitles the party to discretionary relief, particularly when an impetus to the petitioner is given by a judgment passed in some other case. But, at the same time the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 submits that the Management wants to be fair to the petitioners and if the Court restricts the benefits to three years prior to date on which the petitioners moved this Court, they would extend the benefits to the petitioners which were extended to others. The learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 submits that this arrangement was made by the Court, although with agreement of the parties in Writ Petition No.5083 of 1999, therefore, this arrangement can be made in the present petition as well. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has no objection to this arrangement. Therefore, we dispose of this Writ Petition directing respondent No.3 to determine the amount which the petitioners would be entitled to by way of arrears for the period of three years prior to their filing Writ Petition. 3. It is stated that one of the petitioner has retired, so his arrears shall be paid within a period of six months in lumpsum. However, those petitioners who are in service, their arrears shall be paid within three years or before their 1.wp.6817-99 3 retirement, which ever is earlier. 4. With the above observations, Writ Petition is disposed of. [BILAL NAZKI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]