{1} wp333805.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3338 OF 2005 1 The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2 The Director of Medical Education & Research, Dental College Building, 4th Floor, Sent George Hospital Campus, Mumbai. 3 The Dean, Government Medical College, Nanded, District Nanded. Petitioners Versus 1 Dr.Satyanarayan s/o Badrinarayan Punpale, age: 47 years, Occ: service, R/o Govt. Medical College, Nanded, Dist.Nanded. 2 Dr.Vivek M. Sahastrabudhe, age: major, Occ: service, R/o as above. 3 Dr.P.T.Jamdade, age: major, occ: service, R/o as above. 4 Dr.Rajendrakumar s/o Nivrutirao Kagne: {2} wp333805.odt 5 Dr.Gangadhar L. Anmod, age: 42 years, Occ: service, R/o B-4, Govt.Medical College Campus, Nanded, District Nanded. 6 Dr.Sanjay R. More, age: major, Occ: service, R/o Govt. Medical College, Nanded. 7 Dr.S.M.Rathod, 8 Dr.Atul S. Raut, age: major, Occ: service, R/o as above. Respondents Mr. K.B.Chaudhari, A.G.P. for the petitioner. Mr. S.D.Joshi, advocate for respondents no.2, 3, 6 & 8. Dismissed as against Respondents No.4 & 7 as per Registrar’s order dated 31.03.2008. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12619 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3338 OF 2005 Dr.Vivek s/o Mahadeo Sahastrabuddhe and others Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.S.D.Joshi, advocate for applicants. Mr.K.B.Chaudhari, A.G.P. for Respondents. {3} wp333805.odt CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE AND R.M.BORDE, JJ. DATE : 14 th February, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per D.B.Bhosale, J.): 1 This petition is directed against the judgment and order, passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad, dated 07.10.2003, in Original Application No.301 of 2003. The order of the Tribunal reads thus: The present matter is fully covered by the order passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No.149 of 2003 on 26/8/2003. We can, therefore, dispose of the present petition too by directing the Respondent authorities similarly. The present Original Application accordingly stands disposed of at the threshold by directing the Respondent authorities to ignore all the artificial technical breaks by condoning the same and/or sanctioning E.L. in respect of such days of artificial/technical breaks. In result the petitioner shall be entitled to annual increments and leave as is admissible to the ad hoc appointees. It is needless to clarify that the Govt. in Public Health Department’s Resolution dated 31/1/2003 and 10/4/2003 to the extent of giving are day’s technical/artificial break in two spells of appointments has stood rendered ineffective by this order of Tribunal. 4 It is further clarified that appointments {4} wp333805.odt can be given spell after spell but without giving a technical/artificial break in between two spells. Recovery directed of the amount towards increments already paid to the applicant hereby stands quashed and set aside. 2 This Court is informed that the State did not carry the order dated 26.08.2003, passed in Original Application No.149 of 2003 in further proceedings. In other words, the order dated 26.08.2003, passed in Original Application No.149/2003, attained finality. 3 We are further informed that though the State did not carry the order dated 26.08.2003, passed in Original Application No.149/2003, by way of writ petition in this Court, the State has challenged the similar order, as is challenged in the present writ petition, by way of different petitions, including Writ Petition No. 3484 of 2005. This Court, vide order dated 27.11.2008, dismissed the said writ petition along with several other writ petitions. The order, passed by this Court, dated 27.11.2008 in this group of petitions, was further carried to the Supreme Court in SLPs, being SLP Nos.18902-18915 of 2010. The Supreme Court has dismissed all the SLPs on the ground of delay as well as on merits. In the circumstances, learned Counsel for the Respondents, submits that this writ petition also deserves to be disposed of in terms of the order dated 27.11.2008, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. {5} wp333805.odt 3484 of 2005. 4 Having confronted with this, the learned A.G.P. could not raise any dispute about the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for Respondents, though he made a feeble attempt in pointing out that the post, which the Respondent in the present writ petition, is holding is different from the posts which the respondents in those writ petitions were holding. 5 In our opinion, that would not change the complexion of the matter since the Supreme Court has dismissed their SLPs on merits, apart from the fact that the order, on which the impugned order in the present writ petition is based, namely the order dated 26.08.2003 in Original Application No.149/2003, was not challenged by the State. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 6 Order accordingly. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. Civil Application No.12619 of 2009 is also disposed of. R.M.BORDE D.B.BHOSALE JUDGE JUDGE adb/wp333805