Mukesh Nathaji Paikrao v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2025:BHC-AUG:37114-DB wp-15463.25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 26 WRIT PETITION NO. 15463 OF 2025 MUKESH NATHAJI PAIKRAO

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Mr. S.B. Ghatol Patil Advocate h/f. Mr. U.M. Maske Patil Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. S.K. Tambe, Additional G.P. for Respondent-State. ...

CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

DATE : 22nd DECEMBER, 2025 ORDER :

1.

Learned Advocate for petitioner, on written instructions, seeks leave to withdraw present writ petition. The written instructions are taken on record and marked as Exhibit "X". 2.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the representations have been submitted by the petitioner for implementing proper pay-scales and those representations were not yet been resolved. The petitioner had made some contention in respect of those representations in the present Petition and

wp-15463.25 therefore, the learned Advocate submits that he be granted liberty to pursue those representations before the appropriate authority.

3.

While withdrawing the petition, in fact we must observe that present Writ Petition was restricted to the advertisement for recruitment. The petitioner might have made some representations independently in his capacity as the employee of the Bank and it had nothing to do with the advertisement. Though we are of the opinion that the withdrawal is not going to affect the representations, we would clarify that the petitioner would be at liberty to pursue those representations independently.

4.

The Writ Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid.

[HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE asb/DEC25