1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5591 OF 2007 (Indarsingh Parihar and others 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 SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 23, 2008 Heard Shri Bhandarkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3, and and Shri Khapre, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5. Shri Khapre, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5, has brought to our notice that petitioners have alternate efficacious remedy before Grievance Committee of the respondent no.3 University and petitioner no.1 has already initiated proceedings for redressal of his grievance made in the petition before the Grievance Committee, which are 2 pending. Similarly, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are also entitled to undertake the said alternate remedy, which is efficacious. Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3 University, does not dispute the fact that petitioners have alternate efficacious remedy for redressal of grievance made in the petition before the Grievance Committee of the respondent no.3 University and proceedings are already initiated by the petitioner no.1 in respect of grievance made in the present petition before the Grievance Committee. Shri Bhandarkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, states that respondent Management time and again is harassing the petitioners and is not paying salary regularly, which is due and payable to them and, therefore, action needs to be taken against the respondent Management according to law. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, particularly since there is alternate efficacious remedy available to the petitioners and petitioner no.1 has already undertaken the said remedy, in our 3 view, it is open for the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 to undertake the said remedy available before the Grievance Committee and, therefore, we do not propose to show any indulgence in the petition on the ground of availability of alternate remedy, which is equally efficacious and effective. We keep the issues raised in the petition open. At this stage, Shri Khapre, learned Counsel for the respondent Management, states that except salary for the months of June and July 2007, the petitioners are being paid salary regularly, which is due and payable to them and in future also, salary, which will be due and payable to the petitioners, will be paid to them. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE khj