1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1891 OF 1994. Marathwada Sarva Shramik Sanghatna, C/o Trade Union Centre, Kotwalpura, Aurangabad, through its Vice President Harishchandra Shankarrao Sonwane ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Deputy Conservator of Forest, Osmanpura, Aurangabad. 3. Range Forest Officer, Range Office, Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad. 4. Range Forest Officer, Ambad, Dist. Jalna. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.K.Shelke, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Additional Govt. Pleader for the State. ... 2 CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 10.06.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai,J.) 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition for writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent State to issue notification for revised daily wages for agricultural labourers working under the EGS scheme or Jawahar Yojana. 2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that petitioners were working as daily rated employees in the Forest Department for the work of forest. It is their contention that they were getting wages at the rate of Rs.29.10 including Dearness allowance. It is however, submitted that the scheme under which the petitioners were working came to be transferred and the petitioners were only getting Rs.12-40. By an interim order, this Court had directed that the petitioners should be paid at the rate of Rs. 29.10 per day. 3 3. It is not in dispute that during pendency of the petition, the wages payable to the employees working under the EGS scheme have been revised on various occasions and at the moment such workers are paid at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day. The learned Additional Govt. Pleader also says that during pendency of the petition, one of the employees member of the petitioner Sanghatna has expired and services of one of the employee members have been regularised. A categorical statement is made on behalf of the Respondent State that rest of the members are being paid Rs.100/- per day. 4. In that view of the matter, the grievance of the petitioner does not survive. The petitioner has served its purpose. Rule is, therefore, disposed of as aforesaid. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp189194 4