1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4773 OF 2002 Tanzimee Centre and Others ...Petitioners Versus Sadiya Bano Mushtaque Ahmed and others ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2463 OF 2003 Tanzimee Centre and Others ...Petitioners Versus Hadisunnisa Mushtaque Ahmed & others ...Respondents ..... Mr. B.R. Warma, advocate for the petitioners Mr. Pawan Pawar h/f Mr. S.P. Brahme, advocate for respondent No. 1 Mr. P.S. Patil, advocate for respondent No.3 Mr. M.L. Dharashive, learned AGP for respondent No.5. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 13TH AUGUST, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 Heard counsel for respective parties. 2 2 The consent terms duly verified by the petitioner and respondent No.1, in both the matters are placed on record. 3 Learned counsel Mr. P.S. Patil, appearing for respondent No.3 has no objection if the petitions are disposed of in view of the consent terms, which are placed on record. Mr. M.L. Dharashive, learned AGP appears for respondent No.5. Respondent No.2 though served, none appears for the said respondent. Respondent No.4 is deleted in both the petitions from the array of respondents. 4 I have carefully perused the consent terms. So far as clause 6 of consent terms filed in writ petition No. 4773 of 2002 and clause 7 of the consent terms filed in writ petition No.2463 of 2003 are concerned, it is clarified that though the respondents employee is entitled the claim amount viz. different of salary from respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5, the same will be for the scrutiny of the said officers as per existing Rules. All other clauses of the consent terms need no clarification. 5 Both the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the consent terms duly verified by the parties. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Civil applications, if any, stand disposed in view of disposal of writ petitions. 3 6 If any contingency arises, the parties are at liberty to file application for clarification of this order. (S.S. SHINDE, J). rlj/