1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6133 OF 2009 Majid Ahmed Shaikh, R/o-Shengaon, At present: M.I.D.C. Area, Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.R.K. Ashtekar Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri.S.S. Manale Advocate for Respondent No.3. Shri.S.N. Jadhav Advocate for Respondent No.4. Shri.A.V. Patil Advocate h/f. Shri. V.D. Gunale Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Shri.S.K. Kulkarni Advocate for Respondent No.7. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 13TH AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : 1. The Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.5 2 filed affidavits in reply. The same are taken on record. In Para 10 of the affidavit in reply filed by Respondent No.3, it is contended that: "(10) I therefore, say and submit that, the order of reinstatement is complied with. The claim of the Petitioner for payment of back-wages will be complied with within a period of six months. The claim of the respondent No.7 is subjudice in another writ petition before this Hon'ble Court and the services of respondent No.7 will be subject to decision in the said writ petition." 2. The learned counsel Shri. Ashtekar submits that the Respondent No.3 shall be directed to pay back-wages at the earliest. 3. Learned counsel Shri. Patil appearing for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submits that the Petitioner has been allowed to join the duties and 3 accordingly on 29th July, 2010 the Petitioner has joined the duties. 4. Shri. Kulkarni, learned counsel submits that Shri. Kalidas Bhagwanrao Lokare filed Writ Petition No.5704 of 2010, which is pending before the learned Single Judge, wherein ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (E) therein, is granted. 5. We observe that the Writ Petition No.5704 of 2010 would be dealt with in accordance with merits of the said Petition. 6. We clarify that the proceedings of this Writ Petition No.6133 of 2009 were restricted to the execution of the order passed by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer. We have not addressed issues in respect of merits of the claim of contesting parties/employees regarding their entitlement to be appointed or continued in service. 4 7. In the light of the statement made on oath by Respondent No.3 in Para 10, we find that nothing survives in this Petition. The Petition stands disposed of. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/AUG10/wp6133.09