1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2005/1994 Sarwar khan s/o Samsherkhan, Age : 40 years, Occu. Service, R/o Govt. Milk Scheme, Udgir, Dist. Latur. ...Petitioner. Versus 1. Regional Dairy Development Officer, Aurangabad Division, New Administrative Building, Kranti chowk, Aurangabad. 2. General Manager, Govt. Milk Scheme at Udgir, Dist. Latur. 3. The Administrative Officer, Govt. Milk Scheme, Udgir, Dist. Latur. ...Respondents. ........ Shri S.K. Shelke,, Advocate for petitioner. Shri T.S. Lodhe, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 to 3. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J Date : 24th June, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1 Heard. 2. This writ petition challenges the order dated 26/04/1994 passed by 2 Industrial Court, Solapur in complaint (ULP) No.217/1998. The complaint No. 217/1989 filed by the petitioner, seeking directions to the respondent to employ him in the post of time keeper in compliance with award in Reference No.1/1987, has been dismissed. 3. Shri Shelke learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Govt. resolution has been passed dated 21/10/1997 by which 84 unskilled daily wagers, are absorbed in the services of the establishment in Class-III service of the establishment and they are granted certain monetary benefits. According to him, the petitioner was also entitled to all such benefits as are conferred upon 84 unskilled daily wagers, by Govt. resolution dated 21/10/1997, copy of which is placed on record and marked as 'X' for identification. According to him, the claim petitioner has been kept aside on the ground that this writ petition is pending before this Court. He therefore, submits that the complainant is willing to withdraw the original complaint (ULP) No. 217/1989 itself so that his claim for grant of benefit in terms of Govt. resolution dated 21/10/1997 can be considered by the respondents. 4. The learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the petitioner does not possess necessary qualification and on that count, the complaint was dismissed. According to him, the petitioner was 3 therefore not entitled to the reliefs as were claimed in the complaint and Industrial Court therefore, rightly dismissed the complaint by judgment and order dated 26/04/1994. 5. In view of the fact that subsequent to dismissal of the complaint, a decision has been taken by the Govt. as contained in the Govt. resolution dated 21/10/1997, the petitioner can put forth his grievance before competent authority in terms of said Govt. resolution for grant of all such benefits under the said Govt. resolution, as are made available to all the 84 employees who are absorbed. If the respondent authorities kept aside the case of the petitioner only on the ground that the instant petition is pending, then it can not be the reason for non-consideration of the case of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought permission to withdraw the complaint (ULP) No. 217/1989 decided by the Industrial Court on 26/04/1994. The same is therefore, granted. In view of this, the order dated 26/05/1994 dismissing complaint, would not survive. This petition also becomes in fructuous. 6. The learned A.G.P. makes the statement that in view of the fact that complaint itself stands withdrawn, the case of the petitioner shall be considered in terms of Govt. resolution dated 21/10/1997 within a period of six months, from the receipt of the judgment of this Court, on it's own 4 merits without being influenced by judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner. This statement is accepted. 7 As pointed out earlier, this court has passed an interim order in terms of prayer clause ‘D’ and 'E' of the petition, on 28/06/1995 and the same is continued till this date. Said prayer clauses are introduced below. D) Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition issue ad- interim injunction restraining the respondents from allotting the work of Class-IV cadre and paying in the said cadre with a mandatory direction to allot the work of class-III care and pay in the said cadre to the petitioner. E) Direct the respondents to calculate and pay difference of wages from 04/05/1983 till the date of the filing of this petition treating the petitioner as clerk, forthwith. 8. In view of the fact that the petitioner is working in Class-III cadre and getting the pay scale in the same cadre as on this date, the said interim arrangement shall continue till the final decision by the respondents in terms of Govt. resolution dated 21/10/1997. It will be open for the petitioner to make such representation for grant of benefits of this Govt. resolution which shall be considered by the competent authority, within a 5 period of six months as stated earlier. In view of the aforesaid statements made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, nothing survive in this petition. ORDER The petition stands disposed of by recording statements as are contained. The parties to act upon such statements. Civil application also stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to cost. In case, if the decision of the Govt. goes against the petitioner, it shall be open for the petitioner to adopt appropriate remedies as are permissible to him in law. Date : 24/06/2010 (R.K. DESHPANDE, J.) tsk/