1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1436 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1565 OF 1999 Gulabrao s/o Laxmanrao Kotwal ... APPLICANT VERSUS Zonal Manager, Maharasjtra Rajya Sahakari Kapus Utpadak Panan Mahasangh Maryadit, Jalgaon & another ... RESPONDENTS ..... Mrs. C.E. Gaikwad, Advocate for the applicant (original respondent) Shri Parnere, Advocate holding for Shri S.T. Shelke, Advocate for petitioners in W.P. ..... Coram : Shrihari P. Davare, J. Dated : 9th July, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant i.e. original respondent has preferred the present Civil Application making twofold prayers i.e. (1) Interim stay granted in terms of prayer clause (C) on 19.4.1999 be vacated and (2) Writ Petition No.1565/1999 be fixed for final hearing. 2 3. The applicant contends that the respondents (original petitioners) have filed Writ Petition No.1565/1999 against the judgment and order passed by Labour Court and Industrial Court, Jalgaon and same is pending for final hearing. The applicant submits that he was a Senior Grader and he was terminated after departmental enquiry on 21.6.1993. The said order was challenged before the Labour Court, Jalgaon and the said Court allowed the said complaint and the respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant. However, the respondents herein filed revision application before the Industrial Court, Nasik and the order of the Labour Court was confirmed by the learned Industrial Court also. Thereafter the respondents i.e. original petitioners have filed the Writ Petition No. 1565/1999 before this Court and interim order was passed therein on 19.4.1999 in terms of prayer clause (C) of the said Writ petition and accordingly, both the judgments and orders of lower Courts were stayed. 4. The applicant further contents that till today the said writ petition has not been listed for final hearing. The applicant is of 62 years old and he is a senior citizen. He is out of service since 1993. Although reliefs have been granted in his favour by both the lower Courts, the applicant is facing hardship in day-to-day life due to weak financial position. Hence, the applicant has preferred the present Civil Application for two fold prayers as mentioned hereinabove. 5. The learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the present application in respect of first prayer i.e. vacating the interim order 3 dated 19.4.1999 in terms of prayer clause (C) of the Writ Petition, but submitted to the orders of the Court in respect of the another prayer i.e. fixing the date in Writ Petition No.1565/1999 for final hearing. 6. Considering the rival submissions, at the outset, the Writ Petition itself has become old of about 10 years and, therefore, it is required to be taken up for early hearing. Moreover, the applicant has contended that the applicant is of 62 years old and, therefore, it is necessary to decide the writ petition during his lifetime and, therefore also the said writ petition is required to be taken for early hearing. Besides, it is contended that he is facing hardship in day-to-day life and due to weak financial position since 1993 he is out of service although both the lower courts have given judgment in his favour concurrently and the said aspects cannot be overlooked. 7. In the circumstances, Writ Petition No.1565/1999 is required to be fixed for final hearing at the earliest. Since the said writ petition is being fixed for final hearing as aforesaid, there is no necessity to vacate the interim order dated 19.4.1999 in terms of prayer clause (C) of the writ petition and, therefore, the said prayer is required to be rejected. 8. In the result, present Civil Application succeeds in respect of prayer clause (C) thereof, but fails in respect of prayer clause (B) thereof and accordingly, the present Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (C) thereof and Writ Petition No.1565/1999 be fixed for final hearing 4 in the week commencing from 7.9.2009. However, the present Civil Application stands rejected in respect of prayer clause (B) and disposed of accordingly. (Shrihari P. Davare, J.) fmp/ca1436.09