-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 238 OF 2001 with Notice of Motion No. 21 of 2009 1. M. Chandrahasan ) 2. N.K. Mudrale ) 3. P.M. Prabhune ) 4. R.M. Nanavare ) 5. S.R. Mhatre ) 6. V.Y. Joshi ) 7. P.J. Pote ) 8. K.G.Salunke ) 9. G.D. Mhatre ) 10. M.D. Purav ) 11. K.R. Patil ) 12. B.J.Thakur ) 13. D.M. Nair ) 14. M.Y. Mhatre ) 15. S.D. Koli ) 16. S.G. Shinde ) 17. P.M. Bhoir ) 18. P.S. Shelar ) 19. J.L. Khobragade ) 20. M.S. Lonare ) 21. G.B. Koli ) 22. R.L. Kasabe ) 23. K. Ramakrishnan ) 24. D.V. Malwankar ) 25. V.B. Parab ) 26. K.G. Thali ) 27. C.B. Mhatre ) 28. M.V. Kedare ) 29. P.S. Mahekar ) 30. Thomas Saju ) 31. D.M. Khobragade ) 32. T.J. N. Murthy ) 33. J.H. Koli ) -2- 34. S.N. Meshram ) 35. Umakanth Shetty ) 36. S. Khokhar ) 37. Smt. A.S. Narvekar ) 38. S.N. More ) 39. Y.G. Patil ) 40. R.K. Manna ) 41. D.S. Srinath ) 42. T.A. Chavan ) 43. S.G.Shirvardhankar ) 44. G.R. Joshi ) 45. R.D. Shetye ) 46. V.R. Gunjal ) 47. A.G. Vaidya ) All c/o N.A.D. Karanja, Post Naval Station, ) Karanja, Dist. Raigad-400 704 )..Petitioners versus 1. The General Manager, ) Naval Armament Depot, Mumbai Gun Gate, ) Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 023 ) 2. Union of India ) 3. The Flag Officer, Commanding in Chief, Western ) Naval Command, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, ) Fort, Mumbai-400 023 ).Respondents Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy for the petitioners. Mr. H.K. Vardhan with Mr. V.B. Tiwari and Mr. Y.R. Mishra for the respondents. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT , JJ. DATE: MAY 07, 2009 -3- ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.): This petition is filed with a prayer to quash and set aside the order passed by the Administrative Officer dated 18th December, 2000 and the order dated 30th October, 2000 of the Under Secretary, at Exhibit-E to the petition. By way of interim relief it is prayed that the respondents be directed to continue to pay to the petitioners the same wages which were paid to them upto December, 2000. 2. The petitioners are civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence. According to the petitioners, they are working in the Ammunition Workshops at Naval Armament Supply Organisation which is a part of Ministry of Defence establishment. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the decision of the General Manager to reduce their pay scales on various grounds. 3. During the course of hearing, Mr. Ramamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, pointed out that a similar issue has been decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, Kerala, initially and the Tribunal decided the matter in favour of petitioners therein who are similarly situated to the present petitioners. Against the order of the -4- Tribunal, a writ petition was preferred before the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and the same was dismissed. It is submitted that in view of this, the petitioners are required to be given the similar benefit. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that he has not received any instructions as to whether the judgment of the Kerala High Court has taken up before the Supreme Court of India. He pointed out that the petitioners herein have directly approached this Court without approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench. We find some substance in the said argument of the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Considering the said aspect and considering the fact that this writ petition is pending since 2001, we direct the Registry of this Court to remit and transfer this matter to Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai. After receipt of the papers from this Court, the Tribunal may give appropriate number and after hearing the parties, dispose of the same within four months from the receipt of papers from this Court. Both the learned counsel have agreed for remitting and transferring this matter to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai. It is clarified that all points involved in this petition are kept open and we have not expressed any -5- opinion either way as it is for the Tribunal to consider the matter as to whether the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, confirmed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, is applicable to the facts of the present case. Till the Tribunal takes an appropriate decision, the interim relief granted by this Court on 30th March, 2001, at the time of admission of this petition, shall continue to operate. Notice of Motion No. 21 of 2009 stands disposed of accordingly. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J. -6-