IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 7345 OF 2002 WRIT PETITION NO. 7345 OF 2002 WRIT PETITION NO. 7345 OF 2002 The Union of India and others. ... Petitioners. V/s. Shri D’britto Elias Benjamin and others. ... Respondents. Rajiv Chavan with Kiran Kandpile and D.A.Dube for the petitioners. A.M.Ranpise for respondent Nos.1 to 22. A.H.Palekar, AGP for respondent Nos.23 to 25. CORAM: V.C.DAGA and CORAM: V.C.DAGA and CORAM: V.C.DAGA and MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED: 4th March 2009. DATED: 4th March 2009. DATED: 4th March 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 22 and learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.23 to 25. . Perused petition. 2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th February, 2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai in Original Application No.307/2001. 3. During the pendency of this petition, an identical issue came up before the Apex Court for consideration in the case of District Rehabilitation District Rehabilitation District Rehabilitation Officer v. Jay Kishore Maity and others, Officer v. Jay Kishore Maity and others, Officer v. Jay Kishore Maity and others, (2006) 12 SCC 380; wherein, the issues involved in the present petition were considered by the Apex Court in the matter which went to the Apex Court via Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Calcutta and subsequent order passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court; wherein the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as that of the High Court were set aside. In view of this judgment and the law laid down by the Apex Court, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is liable to be quashed and set aside and the matter needs to be remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh in the light of the Apex Court judgment. 4. At this juncture, it will be relevant to notice that in the affidavit in reply filed by the State of Maharashtra, a statement is made that the employees rather respondents are absorbed by the State Government in their employment since the District Rehabilitation Centres have been taken over and run by the State Government. - 3 - 5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 22 and learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent Nos.23 to 25 submit that the matter need not be remanded back to the Tribunal in view of the decision of the Apex Court and the statement made by the State Government regarding absorption of the respondents in their employment. They also submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, by consent of parties, the judgment and order of the Tribunal be set aside accepting the statement made by the State Government in their affidavit and the Government Resolution dated 12th July, 2007 annexed to the said affidavit as Exh.1. The statements made by the State Government in their affidavit and the Government Resolution are taken on record. 6. In view of the above scenario, impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside by consent of parties. Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)