Dr. Dinesh Yadavrao Brahmankar v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, Public Health Department, Mumbai And Others

20.07.wp.3752.16+

IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3752/2016 (Dr. Vijay Vishwanath Jadhao vs. Director of Health Services, Mumbai and another ) WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3757/2016 (Dr. Dinesh yadavrao Brahmankar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ) WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4009/2016 (Dr. Pradeep Narayan Naohate vs. Director of Health Services, Mumbai and another ) .............................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders .............................................................................................................................................. Mr. N.R. Saboo, Advocate for the petitioner/s Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A.NAIK & MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : 20th July, 2016 Heard.

Since the issue involved in the Writ Petitions is identical, they are heard together and are decided by this common order.

By these Writ Petitions, the petitioners have challenged the common order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, dismissing the Original Applications filed by the petitioners, after holding that the petitioners were not entitled to grade pay of Rs. 5400/- as applicable to Group 'A' employees, by relying on the order passed in Original Application No.469/2012. It is however brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of the Writ Petitions, the order in Original

20.07.wp.3752.16+ Application No.469/2012 has been reviewed and it is held that the employees like the petitioners, were entitled to the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- and they would fall in Group 'A' category. It is stated that in view of the subsequent development, it would be necessary to seek a review of the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, by filing appropriate proceedings.

In view of the subsequent development, it would be appropriate for the petitioner/s to file a Review Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, as the order in Original Application No. 469/2012 has been reversed, in view of the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 11.7.2016, in the Review Application filed against the order in the said Original Application.

Hence, we dispose of the Writ Petitions with liberty to the petitioner/s to take appropriate steps. Order accordingly. No costs.

The points raised in the Petition/s are kept open. JUDGE JUDGE sahare