-1- IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.740 OF 2008 NO.740 OF 2008 NO.740 OF 2008 Mr Satishkumar D. Pawar ...Petitioner v/s State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents Mr A.M. Joshi for Petitioner. Mr P.I. Khemani, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND N.D. DESHPANDE JJ. DATE : 28TH APRIL 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to his employer that the petitioner should be paid salary as per the scale prescribed by the State Government / University Grants Commission. In the alternative, the petitioner prays for a direction to the Grievance Committee to take decision on his application. So far as the first prayer is concerned, as the petitioner has already adopted a remedy which is alternate remedy, it will not be appropriate for this Court to issue direction. 2. So far as the question of issuing direction to the Grievance Committee is concerned, the Grievance Committee by communication dated 14th April 2006, through the Registrar, informed the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a complaint in the Court which he has not yet withdrawn, therefore, unless the petitioner withdraws that complaint, his complaint before the Grievance Committee cannot be proceeded with. Though admittedly the petitioner received this letter, the petitioner did not respond to this letter immediately. The petitioner, by letter dated 12th February 2007 addressed not to the Registrar who had written the -3- letter dated 14th April 2006 but to the Chairman of the Grievance Committee, informed that writ petition No.2010 of 2002 has been decided on 18th April 2002 and therefore, he is not now connected with any Court case. and therefore, the Grievance Committee should decide the complaint. What is pertinent is that this letter dated 12th February 2007 is not with reference to the letter dated 14th April 2006 wherein the petitioner was informed by the Registrar that his complaint cannot be taken up by the Grievance Committee because his matter is pending in Court. The letter dated 12th February 2007 is in reply to some other letter, copy of which we do not find on the record. It is not clear from the record whether the complaint pending before the Court which is referred to in the letter dated 14th April 2006 is the petition which is referred to in the letter dated 12th February 2007. It is clear that after receiving the communication dated 14th April 2006, the petitioner took about ten months to reply. Taking overall view of the matter therefore, in our opinion, at the instance of the petitioner, no direction for expeditious disposal of the complaint can be made. Petition is disposed off. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of the Court. -4- . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( N.D. DESHPANDE J.)