1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10416 OF 2004 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. Smt.Sulbha Vasant Parab. ...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10417 OF 2004 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. Shailaja Suhas Malhar. ...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10418 OF 2004 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. Puja Vinod Patankar. ...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10419 OF 2004 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. 2 Prachi Prakash Karmarkar. ...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10420 OF 2004 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. Nepu Ganesh Rai. ...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10421 OF 2004 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. Asha Anant Ranpise. ...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10422 OF 2004 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. Priya Krishna Kulkarni. ...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10423 OF 2004 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. 3 vs. Meena D'Costa. ...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10424 OF 2004 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. Kanchan Anil Shinde. ...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10425 OF 2004 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. Kishor Vijay Shelke. ...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10426 OF 2004 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. Chhotela Bhrudaya Bindu. ...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10427 OF 2004 4 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. Mary Francis. ...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10428 OF 2004 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. Bapu Tippa Manjal. ...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10429 OF 2004 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. Sadanand Aba Jadhav. ...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10440 OF 2004 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. Mugdha Mohan Shetye. ...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10441 OF 2004 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. 5 vs. Theresa Xavier D'Souza. ...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10442 OF 2004 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. Putalabai N. Garad. ...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10444 OF 2004 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. Margaret Damodar Siman. ...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10445 OF 2004 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. Shobha Ramnath Hase. ...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10446 OF 2004 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. 6 Savita Suresh Dhawale. ...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10512 OF 2004 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. Rajaram Tukaram Pawar. ...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10519 OF 2004 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. Rajani Avinash Joshi. ...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10521 OF 2004 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. Smita Shashikant Kadam. ...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10523 OF 2004 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. 7 Shalaka S. Jadhav. ...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10524 OF 2004 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. Sulochana Harishchandra Kadam. ...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10525 OF 2004 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. Usha Prakash Paradkar. ...Respondent. --- Mr.N.V.Gangal with S.R.Nargolkar, for Petitioners. Mr.Nitin Pradhan with Ms.Anita Unnikrishnan i/b. Mr.M.I.Pathan, for Respondents. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED: 18th June, 2008. P.C.:- 1. By these petitions, a common order passed by 8 the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in original application no.27 of 2003 and the other connected original applications dated 12.12.2003 has been challenged. By that order, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has held that the respondents are entitled to the house rent allowance. During the course of the hearing, we find that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the judgment of the Tribunal dated 28.3.2003 passed in original application no.989 of 2002, but the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the judgment of the same Tribunal dated 18.9.2002 passed in original application no.378 of 2002, as also the judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal passed in original application no.416 of 2000 dated 23.7.2001. We were also pointed out that there is an order dated 28.3.2003 passed in original application no.989 of 2002 passed by the same Tribunal which is also relevant. We also find that there is a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of “Director, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kesaragod and others Vs. M.Purushothaman and other, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 2541” which appears to have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal in its judgment dated 23.7.2001 in original application no.416 of 9 2000, but it does not appear to have been considered by the Tribunal in the order which is impugned in these petitions. The learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, therefore, agreed that the order of the MAT which is impugned in the petitions is to be set aside and the original applications be remitted back to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal for denovo consideration and decision in accordance with law. In view of this request, in our opinion, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- (i) All the petitions succeed and are allowed. The common order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal which is impugned in these petitions is set aside. The original applications are remitted back to the Tribunal for denovo consideration and decision in accordance with law. (ii) Considering that the matters are filed in the year 2003, the Tribunal shall dispose of the matters as expeditiously as possible. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) 10 (R.Y.GANOO,J.) ---