1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5969 OF 2010 Ashok S/o Marotrao Dhage, Age : 45 Years, Occu. : Service as Head Master,, R/o Prabhudha Nagar, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Parbhani, District Parbhani. .. .. Respondents Shri Sudhir Bhalerao, Advocate h/f Shri V. P. Latange, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Tambe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1. Shri P. P. Dama, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 3 is deleted. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 19TH JULY, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [Per P. V. HARDAS, J. ] : . At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to delete the respondent No. 3 as no relief is claimed against the respondent No. 3. Deletion permitted at the risk of the petitioner. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. By virtue of prayer clause B to the petition the petitioner has prayed for directing the respondent No. 2 to grant regular pay scale of head master to the petitioner from 01.08.2008. By virtue of prayer clause C to the petition, the petitioner has prayed for directing the respondent No. 2/Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Parbhani to decide the proposal of the petitioner dated 18.07.2008 and 16.12.2009. In that light of the matter and the fact that the proposal is pending, according to us, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief at prayer clause B to the petition. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not press for the relief at prayer clause B to the petition, but prays for liberty to pray for said 3 relief in the event the proposal decided adverts to the petitioner. We according dismiss this petition as not pressed in respect of prayer clause B to the petition with the liberty as prayed for. 3. Since the proposal of the petitioner dated 18.07.2008 and 16.12.2009 for grant of regular pay scale of head master is pending consideration with the respondent No. 2, we allow this petition and direct the respondent No. 2 to decide the proposal of the petitioner, if pending, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 4. Rule is thus made absolute on the above said terms with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/July 10