Mahananda Namdeo Surwase And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

930-wp-660 OF 2019.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 930 WRIT PETITION NO.660 OF 2019 MAHANANDA NAMDEO SURWASE AND ANOTHER

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioners : Mrs. Kasturkar Kulkarni Mayuri G AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 3 : Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. S.S. Manale Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. A.V. Indrale Patil ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & S.G. MEHARE, J.J.

DATED : 02nd MARCH, 2022 PER COURT.:- 1.

The learned advocate for the petitioners apologetically submits that the order of this Court dated 16.02.2022 has not been complied with. She submits that she has submitted a purshis containing the fresh address. However, at this juncture, Shri Patil, learned advocate appears and submits that he is appearing on behalf of respondent no.4. As such, service is complete. 2.

Shri Patil submits that the training school in which the petitioners pray that they may be absorbed, has already been closed down. Petitioner no.1 is now absorbed at a school at Pune and petitioner no.2 is not yet absorbed. The learned advocate for the petitioners confirms the said statement. She then submits that the 1/2

930-wp-660 OF 2019.odt prayer for grant of backwages would survive.

3.

The learned AGP submits that the petitioners have already made representations to respondent no.3, which is placed on record at page no.20 dated 28.09.2018 and page no.22 dated 04.10.2018. Both these applications are pending. The same may be considered by respondent no.3 and a decision could be taken within three months.

4.

In view of the above, this petition is disposed off. Respondent no.3 would consider the first representation dated 28.09.2018, as expeditiously as possible and in any case on or before 31.05.2022 on its own merits. A decision on the representation would be communicated to these petitioners expeditiously. 5.

In the event the grievance of the petitioners is still not redressed, they would be at liberty to avail of the remedy as is permissible in law.

(S.G. MEHARE. J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) Mujaheed// 2/2