1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5630 OF 2009 Anant s/o Devidas Shinde, Age 38 years, Occu.Service, As Extension Officer (Industries), D.R.D.A., Aurangabad R/o 3/13, Anand Nagar, Aurangabad .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary Industries Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 2. The Development Commissioner, (Industries), New Administrative Building, Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 3. The Deputy Director of Industries, (Establishment), New Administrative Building, Opp.Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad and The Chairman District Rural Development Agency 5. Shri Dnyaneshwar s/o Ramchandra Takale, Age Major, Occu.Service as Project Director, D.R.D.A., Aurangabad 6. Smt.Swapna R.Kulkarni, Age Major, Occu.Service as Extension Officer, D.R.D.A., Buldhana, District Buldhana .. Respondents Shri A.D.Sugdare, Advocate for petitioner Shri S.V.Kurundkar, Additional Govt.Pleader for respondent No.1 to 3 Mrs. Manjusha Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.6 2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 26th August 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. At the outset, Shri Sugdare, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks oral leave to join original respondents 4 to 6 who were parties before the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Mrs.Deshpande, learned Counsel accepts notice on behalf of newly added respondent No.6. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties these petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. At the outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not challenge the order passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 30.7.2009 dismissing the original application filed by the present petitioner. It is requested before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that directions be issued to respondents 1 and 2 to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 3.8.2009 which is annexed to the petition as Exh.”E”. In 3 the light of the limited relief which the petitioner has prayed for in this petition, we deem it appropriate to decide this petition finally at this stage. 4. We, accordingly, allow this petition and direct respondents 1 and 2 to decide the said representation of the petitioner dated 3.8.2009, if pending, in accordance with law, within period of four weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 5. Rule is thus made absolute to the extent indicated above with no orders as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE vvr/5630.09wp 4