FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7219 OF 2009 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 This petition essentially takes exception to the order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 17th September, 2009 whereby the request of the petitioner to fix pay scale as per Government Resolution dated 27th April, 1981 with back-wages came to be rejected. The petitioner is relying on the factum of compromise recorded between the parties i.e. the Institute and the petitioner in the civil proceedings. The Respondent No.2 however, was of the view that the compromise was not full and final and, the Civil Court has kept the matter for further hearing on the point of compromise. However, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Civil Court has, at any point of time thereafter, rejected the compromise proposal of the private parties i.e. the management and the petitioner. 3 The only question that ought to have been considered by the Respondent No.2 was whether the said compromise was consistent with the provisions of law. If the Respondent No.2 forms an opinion that the terms arrived at between the private parties i.e. the management and the petitioner are not in conformity with the provisions of law, he would be free to ignore the said compromise and pass appropriate order, as may be advised. On the other hand, if the arrangement agreed upon between the private parties is consistent with the provisions of law and the appointment of the petitioner could be validated, the Respondent No.2 may proceed to fix the pay scale of the petitioner and grant relief to the petitioner consistent with the compromise between the parties. Needless to mention that the respondent No.2, before passing any order on the representation of the petitioner, shall give opportunity to the management to represent its point of view in respect of the relief claimed by the petitioner. The Respondent No.2 shall dispose of the proposal, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within eight weeks from today. All questions are left open to be decided, on its own merits. Petition disposed of accordingly. (S.S. SHINDE, J) (A.M. KHANWILKAR,J) 23.02.2010. PLK/*