1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.2690 OF 2010 (Vidarbha Madhyamik Shala Granthapal Sangh and anr. vs. State and Ors.) _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 22, 2011. Heard Mr.Anand Parchure, Adv. for the petitioners and Mr.V.A.Thakare, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Perused the judgment dt.28.4.2011 delivered in Writ Petition No.177 of 2011 and connected matters at Bombay. The judgment clearly holds that the requirement of having been appointed before 27th December, 1979 is not relevant in case of the present petitioner. Present petitioner has passed his graduation in Commerce (B.Com.) and thereafter, obtained a degree of Bachelor in Library Science on 25.5.1988. The date of appointment is 14.2.1995. Mr.Anand Parchure, Adv. for the petitioners makes a statement that appointment is already approved by respondent no.4. Perusal of the judgment clearly 2 shows that the word “or” in the Government Resolution dt.1.10.1988 has been held to be used disjunctively. Therefore, the petitioner qualifies for grant of pay scale of a Graduate Librarian. The corresponding pay scale is mentioned as Rs.1400- 2300. Mr.Anand Parchure, Adv. for the petitioners states that the figure of 2300 mentioned is incorrect and it has to be 2600. The issue is kept open for consideration of respondent nos. 3 and 4. If the petitioner holds necessary qualification and his service is already approved, it is apparent that his appointment after 27.12.1979 cannot be a ground to deny him appropriate pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 or Rs.1400-2600, whichever may be correct. We, therefore, direct respondent nos. 3 and 4 to implement the judgment of this Court dt. 28.4.2011 (mentioned supra) in the case of petitioner no.2. Appropriate decision in this respect shall be taken by the respondents as early as possible and in any case, within a period of four months from today. Petitioner no.1/Registered Association also claims similar relief in relation to its other members. 3 Mr.Anand Parchure, Adv. for the petitioners points out that the list of other members is mentioned at Annexure-I with the petition. We find that the said list contains total 24 names including that of petitioner no.2. The dates mentioned therein can be verified by respondent nos. 2 to 4 before taking appropriate action with regard to release of similar benefit, if those members are also found eligible. Thus, the petition is allowed by directing the respondents to implement the above mentioned judgment of this Court dt. 28.4.2011 in case of the members of petitioner no.1/Association also. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE jais 4