(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6261 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7034 OF 2010 WRIT PETITION NO. 6261 OF 2010 1. Udhav s/o. Laxmanrao Aajane, Age : 44 years, Occupation : Service, c/o. Baburao s/o. Sadashivrao Warwatte, R/o. Lasona, Taluka : Devani, District : Latur, At present c/o. Nitin s/o. Chandarrao Phutane, Prabhawatinagar, Old Pedgaon Road, Parbhani. 2. Amar s/o. Yogiraj Pachling, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Town Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Collector, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani. 3. The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani. .. Respondents. (2) ....................... Mr. V.M. Humbe, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. S.S. Bora, Advocate, for respondent no.3. ........................ WRIT PETITION NO. 7034 OF 2010 Sau. Surekha Ramrao Sawale, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Service, r/o. Raghvendra Typing Institute, Nanal Peth, Parbhani. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Town Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Collector, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani. 3. The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani. .. Respondents. ....................... (3) Mr. V.M. Humbe, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. S.S. Bora, Advocate, for respondent no.3. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 7TH OCTOBER 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. Since both the petitions raise a common question of law and facts, they are heard together and are being disposed of, by this common judgment. 3. The limited grievance in the petitions is that though the petitioners are in the employment of the respondent no.3 / Municipal Council, their salaries have not been paid. 4. Mr. S.S. Bora, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3 / Municipal Council, submits that the petitioners (4) have entered the services by back door entry. He, however, submits that due to the contradictory orders passed by the Honourable Minister for Urban Development, the petitioners, though were terminated, are now required to be continued in service. 5. The respondent no.3 / Municipal Council, if it so desires, can always initiate the proceedings for inaction on the part of the State Government, which adversely affects its interest. However, so long as employees work with the Municipal Council, it is bounden duty of the Municipal Council to make payment. In that view of the matter, the petitions deserve to be allowed. 6. In the result, the petitions are allowed. (i) The respondent no.3 / Municipal Council is directed to pay 25 percent arrears of salary to the petitioners on or prior to 1st November 2010, by crossed demand drafts in favour of each of the petitioners. (ii) The respondent no.3 / Municipal Council is directed to pay remaining arrears of salary to the petitioners, within a period of three months from today and, that too, by crossed demand drafts in favour of each of the petitioners. (5) 7. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( A.A. SAYED ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp6261etc