1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2553 OF 2011 & WRIT PETITION No. 4089 OF 2008 (Sanjay s/o. Narayanrao Mayee .vs. State and anr.) _______________________________________________________________________ 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 : OCTOBER 04, 2011. Heard Mr.C.A.Joshi, Adv. for the petitioner and Mr.V.A.Thakare, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Reliance is placed upon the order dated 22nd September, 2011 passed in Writ Petition No.2690 of 2011 to contend that the controversy involved in the instant petition is squarely covered by the judgment delivered in the aforesaid petition. Mr.V.A.Thakare, A.G.P. points out the pay scales considered in order dated 27th December, 1979 are different than the pay scales sought for in present Writ Petition No.4089 of 2011. We do not find it necessary to go into 2 these details. The petitioner has been declined the pay scale on the ground that his appointment as Librarian has not been made before 27.12.1979. This Court has already found that appointment after 27.12.1979 cannot be a ground to deny appropriate pay scale in such matters. The judgment delivered at Bombay on 28.4.2011 in Writ Petition No.177 of 2011 has been relied upon in Writ Petition No.2690 of 2010. In this situation, as we find that the reason given in the impugned communication dt.11.7.2008 is unsustainable in law, same is quashed and set aside. The respondents to ignore appointment after 27.12.1979 and to extend to the petitioner appropriate pay scale in accordance with law. With these observations, Civil Application No.2553 of 2011 for disposal of Writ Petition is disposed of. Present Writ Petition No.4089 of 2008 is, thus, partly allowed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE jais