The State Of Maharashtra And Others v. Ramesh Jadhav Patel And Another
2025:BHC-AUG:35150-DB {1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 253 OF 2024 IN WP/10594/2010 Municipal Council Shahada Through Its Chief Office Nandurbar ....Applicant
VERSUS
Ramesh Jadhav Patel And Others .....Respondents .....
Mr. Ajay Deshpande h/f Mr. J.R. Shah, Advocate for Applicant Mr. S.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 1 Mr. A.R Kale, AGP for State .....
WITH REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 254 OF 2024 IN WP/10594/2010 The State Of Maharashtra And Others .....Petitioners
VERSUS
Ramesh Jadhav Patel And Another .....Respondents .....
Mr. A.R Kale, AGP for State Mr. S.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 1 Mr. Ajay Deshpande h/f Mr. J.R. Shah, Advocate for respondent No. 2 .......
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : 12th DECEMBER, 2025 ORDER :
1.
By these applications, applicants seek review of order dated 08.07.2014 passed by this Court thereby holding that petitioner
{2} therein is entitled for the benefit of Government Resolution dated 11.08.1995 and will be entitled for the revised pay scale as laid down in the said Government Resolution after seven years of the petitioner joining the service i.e. since the year 1987. 2.
The review applications are filed on the ground that said Government Resolution dated 11.08.1995 was issued by the Urban Development Directorate and it is applicable only to the Junior Engineers working under the said Directorate. Learned advocate for the applicant by taking us through the said Government Resolution vehemently urged that said Government Resolution is only applicable to the Junior Engineers working under the control of Urban Development Department and with the Urban Development Directorate.
3.
Perusal of order under review shows that proposal of the petitioner was recommended by the Collector and Additional Commissioner and was forwarded to the Directorate of Town Planning, which has rejected it. Hence, the original petitioner was required to approach this Court by filing the writ petition. In the order, this Court has observed that respondent No. 3 i.e. Applicant/Municipal Council has already recommended the proposal for revised pay scale to the Government and it is further held that Government Resolution dated
{3} 11.08.1995 is applicable to the Junior Engineers working under the Urban Development Department and the Junior Engineers working in the Municipal Council are also working under the Urban Development Department. This fact was conceded by all the respective advocates. Considering all these aspects, the writ petition was allowed. 4.
Now, the applicant who had recommended the proposal has taken a somersault and has came up with a case that said Government Resolution is not applicable to the original petitioner. We find no merit in the said contention. These arguments advanced by learned advocate for the applicant were advanced, considered and rejected while passing the order under review. The review applications being devoid of merit are dismissed.
(VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)