: 1 : wp-311-11-C=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 311 OF 2011 Shravan Ramrao Gaikwad ..Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 255 OF 2011 Maruti Balu Kamble & Ors. ..Petitioners v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 256 OF 2011 Tukaram Siddhu Devarkar & Ors. ..Petitioners v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 257 OF 2011 Shrikant Gulab Adav & Ors. ..Petitioners v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 258 OF 2011 Ravindra Narayan Methe ..Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 259 OF 2011 Anand Laxman Bhagat ..Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents : 2 : wp-311-11-C=.sxw WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 260 OF 2011 Keshav Lalaso Pol ..Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 261 OF 2011 Raghunath Shivram Kadam ..Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 262 OF 2011 Devji Govind Kamble & Ors. ..Petitioners v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 314 OF 2011 Shirish Sanjay Sawant ..Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 315 OF 2011 Balku Pandu Dinde & Ors. ..Petitioners v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. V.N. Salunkhe a/w Vijay S. Kokitkar for the petitioner/s Ms. Smita Gandhani, AGP for respondent State in WP-311/11. Mrs. Uma Palsuledesai, AGP for respondent State in WP-255/11. Mr. J.S. Saluja, AGP for respondent State in WP-256/11. Ms. S.M. Dandekar, AGP for respondent State in WP-257/11. : 3 : wp-311-11-C=.sxw Mr. S.S. Joshi, AGP for respondent State in WP-258/11. Ms. S.M. Dandekar, AGP for respondent State in WP-259/11. Mrs. Anjali Helekar, AGP for respondent State in WP-260/11. Ms. S.M. Dandekar, AGP for respondent State in WP-261/11. Ms. Smita Gandhani, AGP for respondent State in WP-262/11. Ms. I.K. Calcuttawala, AGP for respondent State in WP-281/11. Ms. I.K. Calcuttawala, AGP for respondent State in WP-314/11. Ms. Smita Gandhani, AGP for respondent State in WP-315/11. Mr. R.S. Apte with Mr. N.R. Bubna & Ms. M.S. Salekar for respondent nos. 2 and 3. ......... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATE : 1st AUGUST, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Reply affidavit has been filed by the authorised Officer of the respondent no.3, which states that the post of Security Guard and Security Attendant is one and the same. That the two nomenclatures are used with regard to the said post. It is asserted in the reply affidavit that the petitioners cannot claim parity with the pay-scale drawn by the Security Guard employed in another establishment, even if, their nature of work is similar. 3. To refute this argument, Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to paragraph 7 of the Government Resolution dated 30th : 4 : wp-311-11-C=.sxw September, 2009 and contends that the pay-scale to the Security Guard employed by different departments of the State will have to be extended even to the petitioners, inspite of the fact that they are working in the respondent no.2 Corporation, which is an independent establishment. He submitted that the pay-scale provided in Schedule ‘B’ of the Maharashtra Civil Services Revised Pay Rules, 1998 in respect of the Security Guards will have to be provided to the petitioners i.e. Rs. 3050-4590. This argument is devoid of merits. The Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ referred to in paragraph 7 of the Government Resolution dated 30th September, 2009 is in relation to the schedules appended to the said Resolutions and not the schedule contained in the Maharashtra Civil Services Revised Pay Rules, 1998. The Schedule appended to the Government Resolution only notifies the number of posts and does not provide for any service conditions, such as pay-scale payable to each of the post referred to therein. 4. Considering the above, we are in agreement with the submission of the respondent no.3 that the Government Resolution dated 30th September, 2009 will not create any right in favour of the petitioners working in independent establishment of respondent no.2 Corporation to get same pay-scale, as is payable to the Security Guards employed in the Government Departments, automatically. That is a policy : 5 : wp-311-11-C=.sxw matter, on which decision will have to be taken by the appropriate authority. Learned AGP submits that even that aspect has been considered by the Government and the request for giving parity of pay- scale to the security guards employed by respondent no.2 Corporation has already been rejected. That decision, however, is not the subject matter of challenge in the present petitions. 5. In view of the above, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. 6. Writ Petitions dismissed accordingly. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)