1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2911 OF 2010 1. Arjun s/o Gyanuji Kamble, Age : 51 years, 2. Vijay Kumar s/o Chhabu Pardeshi, Age : 55 years, 3. Dilip s/o Ramchandra Kardile, Age : 55 years, 4. Dnyandeo s/o Raghunath Jadhav, Age : 48 years, 5. Balaji s/o Shankar Bhondave, Age : 53 years, 6. Vitthal s/o Shankarrao Amale, Age : 54 years, 7. Madhukar s/o Damodhar Kulkarni, Age : 54 years, 8. Banshi s/o Nivrutti Shelke, Age : 52 years, 9. Datta s/o Sabaji Kasar, Age : 49 years, 10. Smt. Pusnpa d/o Dhondiba Nilawar, Age : 53 years, 11. Kishor s/o Ganpatrao Fulari, Age : 52 years, 12. Chhabu s/o Savleram Bhingardive, Age : 52 years, 13. Sanjay s/o Madhukar Mahatekar, Age : 52 years, 2 14. Smt. Sujata d/o Govind Kale, Age : 50 years, 15. Ladlesaheb s/o Mohd. Ali Bijapure, Age : 60 years, 17. Prakash s/o Bapurao Gaikwad, Age : 55 years, All by Occupation : Higher Secondary School Teachers, R/o Hind Seva Mandal's Pemraj Sarda College, Ahmednagar, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar ..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through : The Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Central Building, Pune - 1 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division, 17, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Pune, District Pune 4. The Accounts Officer (Education), Audit Squad, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar ..RESPONDENTS Mr R.D. Bhalerao, Advocate for the petitioner; Mrs A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 to 3. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 5th August, 2010 3 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V. HARDAS , J ] Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. We have heard Shri R.D. Bhalerao, learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners and Mrs A.V. Gondhalekar, learned A.G.P. on behalf of respondents no.1 to 4. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ directing the respondent - Deputy Director of Education to consider the applications of the petitioners, dated 9.8.2005, 11.1.2007, 11.7.2008 and 11.11.2009, which are annexed to the petition as Exhibit "A" (collectively). 4. It appears that the petitioners intimated the wrong date of the pay fixation while exercising their option in respect of the three tier pay scale system for revision and fixation of their pay scales. Immediately thereafter the petitioners intimated to the respondents that inadvertently a wrong date was mentioned by them. The aforesaid representations are said to be pending and 4 have not been considered. The respondents in their affidavit in reply contend that the scheme completely rules out any correction to be made and, therefore, the aforesaid applications, though pending, cannot be considered in the light of the provisions of the scheme which do not permit correction in the dates. 5. Mr R.D. Bhalerao, learned Counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention to the unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1203 of 2004, Mohammed Yunus Allabax Lalkot vs. The Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division, Pune & ors., dated 25.6.2004. The Division Bench at paragraphs 9 and 10 has observed thus :- "9. We have heard the parties and we are not inclined to accept the arguments of the learned Counsel for the respondents that merely because the date of pay fixation is erroneously mentioned as 1st March, 2000, the petitioner is not entitled to an option that it has exercised as on the date of 1st July 2010. 10. We find that the same is a mere error and on such mere error, the respondents are not entitled to deprive the benefit to the petitioner, which the petitioner is otherwise 5 entitled to in law. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 8th April, 2003 and direct the respondents to revise the pay of the petitioner as per the option exercised by him by taking the date as 1st July 20 00 and release the arrears of salary to the petitioner within the period of four weeks from today. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is made absolute as per the direction set out hereinabove. However there shall be no order as to costs." 6. The aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench fell for consideration before the Division Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.5166 of 2007 in Shri Narayan s/o Namdeo More & anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. The Division Bench of this Court, relying upon the aforesaid judgment, allowed the said writ petition and other companion petitions and directed the respondent no.3 therein to consider the request of the petitioners for correction of the date in the option forms, especially int he light of the decision of the Division Bench at Bombay within a period of four months from the date of the order. Similar relief also came to be granted in Writ Petition No.7514 of 2008 in Shri Avinash s/o Baburao Katkar & ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. by judgment dated 22.4.2009. The Division Bench at paragraph 32 directed the respondent no.3 therein to consider the request of the petitioners for correction of the dates in the option form. 6 7. In the light of the aforesaid three judgments, according to us it is necessary to allow this petition and direct the respondents to consider the applications of the petitioners for correction of the dates in the option forms. We, therefore, allow this petition and direct the respondents to decide the said application of the petitioners, if pending, in accordance with law, within a period of four months from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioners. 8. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp2911.10