1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6786/2007 WITH C.A. NO.2638/2009 Balasaheb s/o Baburao Salunke and another .Petitioners. V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra and others. .Respondents. Shri S.D. Dhongde, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri K.B. Chaudhary, Additional G.P. for R-1,2 and 4. Shri K.K.Kulkarni, Advocate for the respondent 3. ..... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATE : 3 rd DECEMBER, 2009. ==== PER COURT :- 1. We have heard learned counsel Mr. S.D. Dhongde, with advocate Mr. K.B. Jadhav for petitioners, Ld. Additional Government Pleader Mr. K.B. Chaudhary for respondents No. 1,2 and 4 and Advocate Mr. K.K. Kulkarni for Respondent No.3. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of parties. 3. Petitioners, sought writ of mandamus for quashing and setting aside the order dated 2nd November, 2004 and March 31, 2005. This petition 2 has been filed by the petitioners on September 10, 2007. Petition has suffered amendment with the leave of he Court. In response to the writ petition, on behalf of respondent No.2 reply affidavit is filed, sworn in by Mr. Chandrakant s/o Prakash Shelke, working as Naib Tabasildar, Municipal Administration Branch, Commissioner Office, Auangabad. In this reply affidavit it has been contended that petitioners have made Departmental Appeal before Honourable State Minister for Urban Development Department, on May 10, 2007 in connection with the grievance and unless said appeal is decided no cause of action arises to the petitioners to file present writ petition. Other contention of dismissal of writ petition is sought. On behalf of Municipal Council reply affidavit has been filed sworn in by Dr. Tengle Santosh, working as Chief Officer of the Municipal Council, at relevant time. 4. Mr. Dhongde, learned counsel for the petitioners by addressing the Court produced a compilation containing some orders passed by the Director, Municipal Administration, Mumbai. It is marked by letter 'X' collectively only for identification purpose and taken on record. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that appointments have been sanctioned by the respondents however subject to certain terms and conditions. Order dated 2nd November, 2004 is on record (page 23) it is annexure 'G'. Two conditions 3 have been referred to i.e. condition 2 and condition '4'. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, these are rigorous conditions imposed upon the petitioners. Discrimination against the petitioners by respondents. Municipal Council, concerned is not seriously opposing the claim made by the petitioners. 5. Ld. Additional Government Pleader Mr. K.B. Chaudhary points out the affidavit. He submits that apart from the merits, the petitioners appeal is pending before the competent authority and for this reason writ petition filed by the petitioner is pre-mature. Mr. Dhongde, the learned counsel points out in writ petition paragraph No.13 that pendency of the appeal by the petitioners is disclosed. According to him, affidavit on behalf of the State is filed in the month of July, 2009. Appeal filed by the petitioners on 10.05.2007 is still pending. 6. We do not inclined to enter into the merits of issue raised before this Court. Indisputably, Departmental Appeal filed by the petitioners is pending before the learned State Minister for Municipal Administration for about two years. This appeal may be disposed of and decided by the learned Minister in accordance with the provisions of law. 7. We, therefore, are inclined to dispose off this writ petition with direction to the respondent State to decide and dispose off the appeal filed 4 by the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of law within four months from today. 8. Writ Petition, therefore, is partly allowed. Respondents are directed to decide and dispose off the appeal filed by the petitioners within a period of four months from the date of appearance of the petitioner before Learned Minister. Petitioners are further directed to make available copy of this order to the respondents within three weeks from today. 9. Rule accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. ) ( S. B. DESHMUKH, J. ) ***** aaa/6786.07