1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8276 of 2010 Santosh S/o. Shyamrao Hussekar Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. Respondents Mr. P.G. Rodge, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Mr. A.M. Phule, Advocate holding for Mr. N.N. Chitlange, Advocate for respondent NO.7 Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for respondent No.5. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE M.T. JOSHI,JJ. DATE : 24th March, 2011. PER COURT : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to respondent Nos. 5 to 7, to implement the order dated 15.9.2009, passed by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Latur, in Appeal No. 5/2008. By this order, it appears that the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are directed to release salary of the petitioner and further to pay his salary regularly. 3] Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the respondent No.5 has forwarded the proposal to respondent No.2 for taking 2 action against respondent Nos. 6 and 7, for not implementing the order dated 15.9.2009, passed in appeal no. 5/2008. According to learned counsel for respondent No.5, respondent No.2 has so far not taken any action. 4] Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondent No.5 ought to have proceeded against respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and taken appropriate action against them, for not implementing the order dated 5.9.209, passed by respondent No.2, appellate authority. He further submitted that there was no reason for respondent No.5 to forward the proposal to respondent No.2, for taking action. We do not wish to enter into a controversy, whether it is respondent No.5 or respondent No.2, who can take action against respondent Nos. 6 and 7 for not implementing the order dated 15.9.2009. We are satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice :- O R D E R “we direct respondent No.2, and/or respondent No.5, to take appropriate action against respondent Nos. 6 and 7, if they do not implement the order dated 15.9.2009, within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If they propose to take any action against respondent Nos. 6 and 7, we hope and trust that due procedure will be followed. It is made clear that if respondent Nos. 6 and 7 satisfy respondent No.2 or respondent No.5, that the order dated 15.9.2009 has been set aside in any proceedings, they may pass appropriate order and communicate it to the petitioner.” With these observations, we dispose of this writ petition. Parties to act upon the authenticated copy of this order. [M.T. JOSHI,J] [D.B. BHOSALE,J.] grt/wp