1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1377 OF 1997 Pandurang Malhar Toro ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1378 OF 1997 Nivrutti Dagadu Khatal ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1379 OF 1997 Balasaheb Keshavrao Patil ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1380 OF 1997 Dhondira Shankar Desai ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents 2 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1382 OF 1997 Dattatraya Balkrishna Rainak ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1386 OF 1997 Popatrao Jaisinghrao Deshmukh ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1388 OF 1997 Maruti Hari Phatak ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1389 OF 1997 Mahipati Ganpatrao Gaikwad ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents 3 IN ALL MATTERS: Mr. Madan Phadnis, Senior Counsel, with Mr. S.M. Dange with Mr. L.T. Satelkar for the Petitioners Mr. V.P. Malvankar, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondents 1 and 2 None for Respondents No. 3 and 4. CORAM: V.G. PALSHIKAR, Ag.C.J., & D.B. BHOSALE, J. DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 2005. P.C.:- 1. These eight petitions form part of a bunch of 33 petitions, including Writ Petitions No. 575 of 1997 and 4423 of 1995. By both the petitions, Government Resolution dated 27th February, 1989 was challenged. Both the petitions were allowed. In Writ Petition No. 575 of 1997, this Court has observed, while allowing the petition, as under:- “9. This notification of 1989 also does not in any way affect the teachers who are already getting pay scale of Rs.3000-5000. The respondents have not cared to file a reply to the petition. Thus, the averments made in the petition have gone unchallenged. Even at this stage, the learned 4 A.G.P. was unable to furnish any explanation or rationale for not counting the petitioner's services from the date of his initial appointment. Looking to the totality of the circumstances, we feel that the petitioner's claim deserves to be accepted. We accordingly make the rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). No order as to costs.” 2. To similar effect is the judgment of another Division Bench of this Court, of which I was a member, in Writ Petition No. 4423 of 1995, holding that the length of service was allowed to be calculated, as contended by the petitioner. 3. In view of these two judgments, we allow these petitions and make the Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (b).