1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6650 OF 2010 Pramod s/o Bhaidas Ahirrao Age 39 years, Occ. Service (Hostel Superintendent), R/o Baba Amte Bharat Jodo Ashram School, Sakri, Tq. Sakri, District Dhule. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. (Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. The Director, Vimukta Jati Nomadic Tribe, Other Backward Class, Special Backward Class, Maharashtra State, Pune 3. Special District Social Welfare Officer, Dhule, District Dhule. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri A.D. Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondents ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 3rd August, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER N.D. DESHPANDE, J.): 2 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. We have heard Mr. Pawar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Gondhalekar, learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ for declaring that Clause 2 and 3 of the Corrigendum dated 3.4.2007 of Government Resolution dated 18.9.2000 is unreasonable, arbitrary and ultra vires the Constitution of India and also prays for quashing and setting aside the same to the extent of disparity between the Hostel Superintendent of Ashram Schools recognised by the Tribal Development Department and Social Justice Department. The petitioner also prays for directing the respondents to pay the pay scale of Rs.4500-125-7000 from the date of his appointment as Hostel Superintendent along with the arrears etc. The petitioner further prayed for directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the judgments rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1491 of 2001 and in Writ Petition No.7235 of 2009. 3. We need not advert to the facts of the present case as it would suffice to state that the Division Bench of this Court, while examining the similar challenges in Writ Petition No.7235 of 2009, by 3 its judgment dated 11.2.2010, had allowed the petition and had held by relying upon the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.1491 of 2001 dated 4.11.2009 that Clauses 2 and 3 of the Corrigendum dated 3.4.2007 of Government Resolution dated 18.9.2000 are unreasonable and unconstitutional to the extent of disparity between the Hostel Superintendent of Ashram Schools recognised by the Tribal Development Department and Social Justice Department. In that light of the matter, therefore, this question is no longer res integra and is accordingly answered. The petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) to the petition. 4. The Division Bench in the said judgment has further directed respondent No.1 to decide the claim of the petitioner keeping in mind the principle stated in the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sahebrao Karbhari Gunjal and ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors, Writ Petition No.1491 of 2001, dated 4.11.2009 and further directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners within three months from the date of the judgment. The Court also directed that if the petitioners were found entitled, the payment be made to the petitioners not later than four weeks from the date of the decision. 5. In that light of the matter, therefore, we accordingly allow this petition in terms of prayer clause (B) to the petition and further direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner keeping 4 in mind the principle stated in the judgment of Sahebrao Karbhari Gunjal and ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors., Writ Petition No.1491 of 2001, dated 4.11.2009 and Hari Naththu Hudekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No.7235 of 2009 dated 11.2.2010 and decide the claim as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than three months from today. We further direct the respondents to ensure that payment is made to the petitioner, if he is found entitled, within four weeks from the date of the decision. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)