1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4539 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5350 OF 2001 Balbhim s/o Sunderrao Bedre ... APPLICANT VERSUS Shri Ganesh Yuvak Sanstha & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri V.L. Dhoble, Advocate for the applicant (original respondent) Shri N.A. Shelke, Advocate holding for Shri D.N. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 (original petitioners) ..... Coram : Shrihari P. Davare, J. Dated : 9th July, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant has preferred the present Civil Application for twofold prayers i.e. (B) The Writ Petition No.5350/2001 may kindly be fixed for final hearing. (C) Interim stay may kindly be vacated in the interest of justice. 2 3. The applicant contends that he was appointed as a Peon on 15.5.1990 by the respondent management and his services were approved by the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Beed. It is the contention of the applicant that he is deemed confirmed employee. However, the applicant contends that he was illegally terminated on 20.7.1996 and hence, he filed Appeal No.215/1996 before learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad and the said appeal was allowed on 23.1.2001. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the respondents i.e. original petitioners management filed Writ Petition No. 5350/2001 before this Court and this Court granted interim relief on 7.1.2002 and since then the said Writ Petition is pending before this Court. 4. The applicant submits that, the said interim relief was obtained by the respondents herein exparte and the applicant is facing hardship and financial constraint due to his termination and, therefore, requested to vacated the said interim order. 5. The applicant further submits that, the respondent/ management is not taking steps to take up the Writ Petition for final hearing deliberately. Almost 8 years have been passed and, therefore, the applicant prayed that the said pending Writ Petition be taken up for final hearing. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed prayer clause (C) vehemently and submitted to the orders of the Court as regards prayer clause (B) in the present Civil Application. 7. Considering the rival submissions, since the interim order was passed on 7.1.2002 after assessing the documents filed along with the Writ Petition and also after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said 3 order cannot be vacated abruptly unless due hearing is given to both the parties in that respect and, therefore, the said prayer cannot be granted. 8. As regards prayer clause (B), the Writ Petition is of the year 2001 and numerous matters therebefore are pending before this Court and, therefore, liberty can be granted to the applicant to prefer the application for the said prayer after a period of six months, keeping open the said prayer to the applicant for agitation. 9. In the circumstances, present Civil Application is required to be rejected in terms of prayer clause (C) thereof and liberty is required to be granted to the applicant in respect of prayer clause (B) thereof to prefer Civil Application in respect of said prayer after a period of six months. 10. In the result, Civil Application No.4539/2009 stands rejected in terms of prayer clause (C) thereof and liberty is granted to the applicant to prefer Civil Application for early hearing i.e. in respect of prayer clause (B) after a period of six months. Civil Applications stands disposed of accordingly. (Shrihari P. Davare, J.) fmp/ca4539.09