Bombay High Court
Sanjay Bhagwan Chavan And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 15 November, 2022
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi
1 WP / 10680 / 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.10680 OF 2021
Sanjay Bhgwan Chavan and Ors. ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..RESPONDENTS
Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for petitioners;
Ms. V.N. Patil-Jadhav, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 & 2;
Mr. A.B. Girase, Advocate for respondent no.3
CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ.
AND
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
DATE : NOVEMBER 15, 2022
PC :
1. Petitioner has approached this Court with the following
prayers:
"(A) By a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate
writ, or order or directions in the like nature, the
respondents be directed to give all the benefits,
including the arrears of salaries to the petitioners in the
pay scale of Rs.4000/- to Rs.6000/- as provided in the
Govt. Resolution dated 27.02.2006.
(B) By a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate
writ or order or directions in the like nature, the
respondents be directed to pay the arrears of difference
of salary to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible
and preferably within three months."
2 WP / 10680 / 2021
2. According to Mr. Barlinge, learned advocate for the
petitioner, the issue involved in this writ petition is covered by
the decision dated July 4, 2014 of a co-ordinate Bench in Writ
Petition No.243 of 2007. It is also his case that the said
decision has been upheld by the Supreme Court, in the sense
that the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on the ground of
delay.
3. Be that as it may, we do not find any representation
having been made by the petitioner before the authority
seeking relief as claimed in this writ petition on the basis of the
order of this Court passed earlier in Writ Petition No.243 of
2007.
4. We are of the view that the petitioner, before invoking our
writ jurisdiction, ought to have approached the duly
empowered respondent with a prayer for extension of similar
benefit as was granted to the petitioners in Writ Petition No.243
of 2007. This, we hold, in view of the decisions of the Supreme
Court reported in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. etc.
V. Union of India, reported in AIR 1975 SC 460, State of
Haryana and another V. Chanan Mal etc., reported in AIR
1976 SC 1654 and Rajasthan State Industrial
Development & Investment Corporation V. Diamond &
Gem Development Corporation Limited, reported in
3 WP / 10680 / 2021
(2013) 5 SCC 470. The aforesaid decisions were relied on by a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court while dismissing Public Interest
Litigation (L) No.1553 of 2020 (Vijender Kumar Rai V. State
of Maharashtra and ors.) by judgment dated February 21,
2022.
5. In view of the above decisions, we do not see reason to
examine the petitioner's grievance at this stage without a
representation having been made by him to the concerned
respondent and without there being an express or implied
denial of his claim.
6. The writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the
petitioner to approach the concerned respondent with an
appropriate representation seeking relief within a period of a
fortnight from today. If such representation is received, the
concerned respondent shall proceed to decide such
representation in accordance with law as early as possible but
preferably within two months from date of receipt thereof. All
contentions are left open.
7. No costs.
[SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
amj
