1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2352 OF 2010 1. THE MAHARASHTRA ASHRAMSHALA SHIKSHAK VA SHIKSHAKETAR KARMACHARI SANGH, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT VASANT NAGAR, KOTGYAL, TQ. MUKHED, DISTRICT NANDED THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT SHRI SHIVAJI DEORAM SHELKE 2. MAHINDRA GANGARAM CHAVAN Age : 42 Sex : M AT KUNDANE DHULE 3. BHIMRAO KRISHNA BHADANE Age : 40 Sex : M AJNAD TQ. SHIRUR DHULE 4. SANJAY MOTIRAM DESALE Age : 38 Sex : M KASARE TQ. SAKRI DHULE 5. PRALHAD BARIKRAO SHINDE Age : 47 Sex : M KUSUMBE, TQ DHULE DHULE 6. RAJENDRA LIMBA SAVALE Age : 32 Sex : M PIMPALNER, TQ. SAKRI, DHULE 7. SURESH TRIMBAK NIKUMB Age : 44 Sex : M PANDIT NAGAR, GALAN BK. TQ. PACHORA, JALGAON 2 8. SAMBHAJI SHIVAJI CHAVAN Age : 36 Sex : M TANDA SIRSALA, TQ. SILLOD, AURANGABAD 9. SURESH DEWAJI GUNJAL Age : 35 Sex : M TELEPHONE COLONY, BHAWANI NAGAR DINDORI NASHIK 10. VIJAY SHRIRAM PATIL Age : 40 Sex : M SHRIPURVADE, TQ. BAGLAN NASHIK 11. RAMESH SHRAVAN PAGARE Age : 41 Sex : M ADARSH NAGAR, GAWALI NIVAS, BORGAD MHASRUL, NASHIK 12. RAJENDRA NAMDEO WAGH Age : 37 Sex : M DANG SAUDANE, TQ. BAGLAN NASHIK 13. SOMNATH CHHABU GANGURDE Age : 38 Sex : M DIGHVAD, TQ. CHANDWAD, NASHIK 14. SUBHASH MAHADU AHIRE Age : 40 Sex : M WADNER (KHA.) TQ. MALEGAON, NASHIK 15. PANDHARINATH BABURAO ISHI Age : 41 Sex : M VAJGAON, TQ. DEOLA NASHIK 16. TATYASAHEB BHIMRAO UGALE Age : 37 Sex : M PIMPRI HAVELI, TQ. NANDGOAN, NASHIK 3 17. APPASAHEB CHANDRABHAN DHANWATE Age : 39 Sex : M WAVI, TQ. SINNAR, NASHIK 18. DNYANESHWAR SHIVRAM GARE Age : 33 Sex : M DATALI, TQ. SINNER NASHIK ..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SOCIAL JUSTICE DPETT MANTRALAYA MUMBAI MUMBAI 2. THE DIRECTOR, VIMUKTA JATIS, NOMADIC TRIBES, OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES SPECIAL BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DIRECTORATE M.S. PUNE 3. THE SPECIAL DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER, DHULE 4. THE SPECIAL DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER, JALGAON 5. THE SPECIAL DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER, AURNGABAD 6. THE SPECIAL DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER, NASHIK ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.T. Shelke, Advocate for the petitioiners; Mr K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for respondents 4 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3008 OF 2010 PRAMOD NAGRAM RATHOD Age : 35 Sex : M PIMPARKHED TANDA TQ CHALISGAON DIST JALGAON JALGAON ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SOCIAL JUTICE DEPTT MANTRALAYA MUBMAI MUMBAI 2. THE DIRECTOR, VJNT, OBC SPL. BC WELFARE DIRECTORATE MAH. STATE PUNE 3. THE SPECIAL DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER JALGAON ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.T. Shelke, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr N.B. Khandare, Govt. Pleader for respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3012 OF 2010 HARISCHANDRA BHASKAR RATHOD Age : 43 Sex : M C/O. VASANTRAONAIK PRATHAMIK ASHRAMSHALA AT AND POST PIMPARKHEDA TANDA TQ CHALISGAON DIST JALGAON JALGAON ..PETITIONER 5 VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPTT MANTRALAYA MUMBAI MUMBAI 2. THE DIRECTOR, VJNT, OBC SPL. BC WELFARE DIRECTORATE MAH. STATE PUNE 3. THE SPECIAL DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER JALGAON ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.T. Shelke, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr N.B. Khandare, Govt. Pleader for respondents. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ DATE : 4th May, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties these three petitions are being decided together finally at this stage by this common judgment. 2. Learned Counsel for the parties agree that the subject- matter of challenge in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in 6 Writ Petition No.1491 of 2001, Sahebrao Karbhari Gunjal & ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors., decided on 4.11.2009. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment allowed the petition in terms of prayer clauses (CC), (DD) and (EE), which read as under :- "(CC) Hold and declare that the Government Resolution dated 18.9.2000 at Exhibit-D is violative of Article 14, 16 of the Constitution of India to the extent that it is not provided for Higher Grade and Selection Grade pay scales at par with Hostel Superintendents of Tribal Development Department as per G.R. dt. 27.3.2000 at Exhibit-C. (DD) Hold and declare that the corrigendum dt. 3.4.2007 is violative and ultra vires the Article 14, 16 and 39 (d) of the Constitution of India to the extent it deprives the Hostel Superintendents like the petitioners from the pay scale of Rs.4500-125-7000 who are appointed and confirmed prior to 5.2.2000 but do not have D.Ed. qualification (EE) To direct the respondents to pay the pay scale of Rs. 4500-125-7000 along with arrears to the petitioners and for that purpose issue a necessary writ or order." 7 3. Since the learned Counsel for the parties agree that the controversy in the present petitions stand squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment, we also allow these three petitions in terms of the decision of the Division Bench. Accordingly, we allow these petitions in terms of prayer clauses (B) and (C) with no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp2352.10