1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6653/2008 IN M.C.A . ST. NO. 13421/2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.561 OF 2008 (Mohan s/o Ajabrao Khapane vs. State and others) ___________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND C.L. PANGARKAR, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 14, 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6653 OF 2008 Heard Shri Parchure, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Deopujari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. Civil Application No.6653/2008 is moved by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing review petition. We have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties. For the reasons stated in the civil application, delay is condoned. The civil application is allowed. 2 MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.13421/2008 Heard Shri Parchure, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Deopujari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. Shri Parchure, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that petitioner is claiming pay scale for the post of Hostel Superintendent on the basis of Circular dated 3/6/2008 issued by the State Government. It is contended that due to inadvertence, the said Circular was not annexed to Writ Petition No. 561/2008 nor the writ petitions, which were filed earlier to that, in this Court. This Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 561/2008 by the impugned order and the relevant portion of the impugned order reads thus : “It is a matter of fact that this Court never adjudicated upon entitlement of the petitioner for pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/- nor there was any Rule or Circular placed on record either in the earlier petition or in the present petition to show that pay scale claimed is on the basis thereof and, therefore, merely because in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government in the earlier petition, it was stated that pay scale of these two posts, i.e. Hostel Superintendent and Assistant Teacher was similar, that by itself, in our view, does not create any legal right in the 3 petitioner to claim the same unless there is a Rule, Circular or any direction issued by the State Government in this regard. This fact is also evident from the order dated 27.9.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Petition No.184/2004.” In view of the above referred observations made by this Court in the impugned order, it is evident that claim of the petitioner for pay scale was rejected for want of Rule, Circular or guidelines issued by the State Government in this regard. However, the Circular dated 3.6.2008 was not annexed with the earlier petitions and, therefore, this Court had no occasion to consider eligibility of the review petitioner to claim the pay scale on the basis thereof. In the circumstances, no case is made out for showing indulgence in the review petition. However, it is open for the petitioner to canvass his grievance before the competent Authority in this regard. It is also open for the competent Authority to consider eligibility of the petitioner to get the pay scale as claimed by the petitioner accordingly. With these observations, the review petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE khj 4