WP/2121/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2121 OF 2011 1. Pramod Ganpatrao Chilarge Age 35 Years, Occ. Service R/o at post Risangao, Tq. Loha, District Nanded. 2.Ganpu Haribhau Rathod Age 42 years, Occ. Service R/o Vitthalnagar, Loha Tq. Loha, District Nanded. 3.Prakash Vikram Chavan Age 33 years, Occ. Service, R/o at Post Malakoli, Tq. Loha, District Nanded. 4.Shivaji Gangaram Jadhav Age 43 years, Occ. Service R/o Gandhi Nagar, Kandhar Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded. 5.Sanjay Ramrao Dharmure Age 36 years, Occ. Service R/o at post Palsa, Tq. Hadgaon, Dist.Nanded. 6.Vijay Bhojram Rathod Age 30 years, occ. Service R/o at post Chabhara Tanda, Tq. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded. 7. Lashman Ragunath Devarshe Age 36 years, Occ. Service R/o at Post Hassapur, Taluka and Dist. Nanded. 8. Hanmant Chandu Gaikwad, Age 37 years, occ. service R/o At post Warakwadi, Tq. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded. 9. Sunil Roopsing Paar, Age 45 years, Occ. Service WP/2121/2011 2 R/o Rampurtanda, Tq. Palam, Dist. Parbhani. 10. Shivaji Sambhaji Bahewad, Age 35 years, Occ. Service R/o Vasant Nagar, Mahapur, Tq. and Dist. Latur. ..Petitioners Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Social Justice Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2.The Director, Vimukta Jati Nomadic Tribe, Other Backward Class, Special Backward Class, Maharashtra State, Pune. 3. Special District Social Welfare Officer, Aurangabad. ..Respondents ... Shri A.S.Lomte, Advocate for petitioners Shri D.R.Korde, AGP for respondents ... CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & S.B.DESHMUKH, JJ. Dated : June 17, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per DESHMUKH, J.) :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. By this writ petition, petitioners are seeking declaration that they are entitled to the benefits flowing from the Judgment dated WP/2121/2011 3 4th November, 2009, in Writ Petition No. 1491 of 2001, in respect of pay-scale as well as for seeking higher and selection grade and for the arrears of pay. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the questions raised in this petition are squarely covered by the Judgment of this Court dated 4th November, 2009, in Writ Petition No. 1491 of 2001 (Sahebrao Karbhari Gunjal and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others), which is subsequently followed in Writ Petition No.1854 of 2011 (Balaji Bhagwanrao Pathak Vs. State of Maharashtra) dated 18.3.2011. Learned A.G.P. submits that if the petitioners approach respondent No. 1 - State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai through respondents 2 and 3, with a representation seeking similar relief, relying upon the aforesaid Judgment of this Court, they will consider their representation and decide the same within time frame. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that this petition can be conveniently disposed of by following order : (A) The petitioners are allowed to make representation to respondent No. 1 through respondents 2 and 3, within a period of four weeks from today for reliefs prayed for in this petition. It is open to the petitioners to annex copy of the present writ petition to their representation, so also to rely upon the Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1491 of 2001 so also Writ Petition No.1854 of 2011, in support of their claim. WP/2121/2011 4 (B) If the representation is made by the petitioners within the stipulated time, respondent No. 1 shall consider and decide the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. (C) If, for any reason, respondent No. 1 is not inclined to allow the representation of the petitioners, they shall grant an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. (D) It is needless to mention that if the petitioners’ representation is allowed, the payment, as prayed for, be made, within a period of six months from the date of decision. (E) We hope, respondent No. 1 shall communicate their decision to the petitioners immediately after passing an order on their representation. 3. Rule made absolute, in terms of this order. No order as to costs. (S.B.DESHMUKH,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) ... akl