{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3884 OF 2002 The North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon, through its Registrar, Post Box No.80, North Maharashtra University Nagar, Jalgaon. Petitioner Versus 1 Prafulla Ramdas Wagh age: major, Occ: service, resident of Swapna Sakar Apartment, Datta Colony, Shahunagar, Jalgaon. 2 The Director of Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Central Building, Pune. 3 The Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3883 OF 2002 The North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon, through its Registrar, Post Box No.80, North Maharashtra University Nagar, Jalgaon. Petitioner Versus 1 Ishwar Bhaurao Patil, {2} age: major, Occ: service, resident of Plot No.14, Near Samarth Dairy, Laxmannagar, Jalgaon. 2 The Director of Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Central Building, Pune. 3 The Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3881 OF 2002 The North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon, through its Registrar, Post Box No.80, North Maharashtra University Nagar, Jalgaon. Petitioner Versus 1 Vinay Vikram Desale, age: major, Occ: service, resident of C/o R.N.Patil, Plot No.33, Gat No.53, Shiv Colony, Jalgaon. 2 The Director of Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Central Building, Pune. 3 The Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, {3} Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3882 OF 2002 The North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon, through its Registrar, Post Box No.80, North Maharashtra University Nagar, Jalgaon. Petitioner Versus 1 Balkrishna Deoram Patil, age: major, Occ: service, resident of Block No.B/2, Samata Housing Society, Premnagar, Pimprala Road, Jalgaon. 2 The Director of Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Central Building, Pune. 3 The Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. Respondents Mr.A.B.Girase, holding for Mr.R.B.Raghuvanshi, advocate for petitioner. Mr.S.S.Choudhari, advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, A.G.P for respondents no.2 & 3. {4} WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3798 OF 2002 1 State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2 The Director of Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Pune. Petitioners Versus 1 Ishwar Bhaurao Patil, age: major, Occ: service, R/o Plot No.14, Near Samarth Dairy, Laxman Nagar, Jalgaon. 2 The North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon, through its Registrar. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3803 OF 2002 1 State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2 The Director of Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Pune. Petitioners Versus 1 Vinay Vikram Desale, {5} age: major, Occ: service, R/o C/o R.N.Patil, Plot No.33, Gat No.53, Shivcolony, Jalgaon. 2 The North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon, through its Registrar. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3799 OF 2002 1 State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2 The Director of Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Pune. Petitioners Versus 1 Prafulla Ramdas Wagh, age: major, Occ: service, R/o 2, Swapna Sakar Apartments, Datta Colony, Shahunagar, Jalgaon. 2 The North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon, through its Registrar. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3800 OF 2002 1 State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. {6} 2 The Director of Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Pune. Petitioners Versus 1 Balkrishna Deoram Patil, age: major, Occ: service, R/o Block B-2, Samata Housing Society, Premnagar, Pimprala Road, Jalgaon. 2 The North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon, through its Registrar. Respondents Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for petitioners. Mr.S.S.Choudhari, advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.A.B.Girase, advocate holding for Mr.R.B.Raghuwanshi, advocate for respondent no.2-University. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 29 th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 In all these petitions common order passed by the Industrial Court on 28.11.2001 is subject matter of challenge. 2 Respondent No.1 in all these petitions are the employees of University and were initially appointed as Draftsman, Store Keeper, Surveyors, etc. It was the contention of concerned employees that they are required to perform the work which was {7} being performed by Junior Engineers and as such they claimed their entitlement to the pay scale admissible to Junior Engineers. The grievance made by employees was accepted by the Industrial Court and State Government as well as University were directed to pay the employees pay scale equivalent to Junior Engineers, as claimed by employees. The order passed by the Industrial Court is subjected to challenge at the instance of employer i.e. University as well as State Government, in all these petitions. 3 Learned Counsel Shri Girase appearing for the University has informed that the State Government had called a proposal from the University in respect of grant of pay scale to the concerned employees equivalent to the pay scale admissible to Junior Engineers and accordingly a proposal was submitted by the University to the State Government. It is stated that the proposal tendered by the University on 03.11.2009 has been accepted by the State Government and Resolution has been issued on 04.12.2009. By the said Resolution, the State Government has granted approval for grant of pay scale to the concerned employees equivalent to the pay scale admissible to Junior Engineers and as such, grievance made by complainant-employees stands redressed. There is also no dispute that the employees are held admissible to receive pay scale equivalent to the Junior Engineers in the University. 4 In this view of the matter, challenge raised in the {8} petitions is rendered infructuous. All these petitions, therefore, stand dismissed. Rule discharged. In the facts and circumstances of these cases, there shall be no order as to costs. 5 In view of dismissal of all these petitions, all the pending Civil Applications, in all these petitions, do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/wp388402