1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4659 OF 1999 1) Nilkanth Khumansing Thakur Age about 60 years, retired pensioner, R/o New Town, Badnera, Tahsil and District Amravati. 2) Pandurang Anyaji Patil Since deceased by LRs a) Sushilabai Wd/o Pandurang Patil-Dalvi Aged 65 years, Occupation Household b) Pradeep S/o Pandurang Patil-Dalvi Aged 49 years, Occupation Service c) Sheela D/o Pandurang Patil-Dalvi Aged 48 years, Occupation Household d) Santosh S/o Pandurang Patil-Dalvi Aged 42 years, Occupation Nil e) Mangesh S/o Pandurang Patil-Dalvi Aged 42 years, Occupation Nil All R/o Chawadi Chowk, Juni Basti, Badnera, Tahsil and District Amravati. …....... Petitioners. VERSUS 1) Municipal Corporation of the .....2/- 2 City of Amravati. By its Administrator, Amravati, Tahsil and District Amravati. 2) The Member, Industrial Court, Amravati. …....... Respondents. Shri S.T.Harkare, Counsel for the Petitioners. Shri J.B.Kasat, Counsel for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 08th JUNE, 2011. 01) The petitioners had filed Complaint (ULP) No.2 of 1986 claiming relief of benefit of pay-scale in the post of Cashier and Assistant Accountant respectively. During the pendency of this complaint before the Industrial Court, an order was passed on 25.6.1993 granting pay-scale of Rs. 395-800 to the petitioner no.1 w.e.f.15.8.1983 and the petitioner was appointed as a Cashier at Badnera. 02) Shri S.T.Harkare, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the order dated 25.6.1993 passed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, the grievance of the petitioners was satisfied and in fact, the petitioners should not have prosecuted further the Complaint .....3/- 3 (ULP) No.2 of 1986. The learned Counsel further submits that under the wrong advice, the petitioners had prosecuted the complaint, which was allowed and the respondents were directed to grant pay-scale to the petitioner no.1 in the post of Cashier w.e.f.25.6.1993. 03) In view of above, he submits that the respondents are trying to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioners upon granting of pay-scale of Rs.395-800 w.e.f.15.8.1983. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, therefore, submits that the petitioners should be permitted to withdraw Complaint (ULP) No.2 of 1986, in view of the order dated 25.6.1993 passed by the respondents. The learned Counsel Shri J.B.Kasat, appearing for the respondents has no objection for grant of such permission. 04) In view of above, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw Complaint (ULP) No.2 of 1986. As a result of this, the petition has become infructuous. The same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE BrWankhede ...../-