Wp 2715/11 1 IN THE HICH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2715/2011 The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Petitioners Vs. Subhashchandra R.Raje & Ors. Respondents Mr.A.B.Vagyani ,AGP for Pet. Ms.S.P.Manchekar for Res. CORAM- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE 25th April,2011 P.C. . Heard counsel for the parties. 2 The fact that the respondents were similarly placed as A.M.Deshpande, who was the applicant in O.A.no.421/1993 ; as also applicants in O.A.33/97 ,71/99,and 342/99 decided by the Aurangabad Bench, is not in dispute. As a matter of fact, on the basis of the said decision even though the respondent was not party to the above said original applications , similar benefit was extended to the respondent as was given to the applicants in the above said original applications as the decision of the Tribunal had attained finality after rejection of the appeal preferred by the State Government on 4/11/1996 . Wp 2715/11 2 3 The only argument canvassed before us, is that, the action of granting increment with effect from 1/5/1981 would be illegal, considering the fact that the provisions of Rule 41(b) of the Mumbai Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 1981 came into force only with effect from 14/8/1981. In the first place , no such grievance was made before the Tribunal . Besides, it is too late in the day for the petitioner to agitate this contention as the decision of the Tribunal dated 17/8/1995 in O.A. 421/1993 has attained finality after the decision of Special Leave Petition filed on 4/11/1996. As a matter of fact, on the basis of the direction contained in the said decision, the Tribunal at Aurangabad Bench decided three other Original Applications of the employees similarly placed and issued identical directions. Even though the respondent was not party to the said application, the respondent would be entitled for similar benefit as is extended to the applicants in the above numbered original applications. That is the precise view taken by the Tribunal in the impugned decision. 3 Hence no interference is warranted. Petition is dismissed. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR ,J.)