Issue a Writ prohibition or any other appropriate Writ, order or directions in the nature of Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the Respondent Nos.
A demand was raised for a sum of Rs.7,43,686/ .
1 to 4, their officers and subordinates from demanding and or recovering any amount towards the salary and wages with retrospective effect from 1.1.1996 as per the circular dated 30.7.1999 as per the demand numberices dated 17.6.2000 and August 2000 and for that purpose issue necessary orders.
Following the said decision, the writ petition filed by the appellant was allowed, holding In view of our detailed judgment passed today on Writ Petition No.3501/2000, we allow the petition.
SUP/112003/7553 dated 12.11.2003 and that the officer would be recovering the supervision charges as per the order of this Court dated 28.9.2000 as passed in Writ Petition No.4092/2000.
1.1.1996 i.e., retrospective effect towards the supervision charges is therefore illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19 1 g of the Constitution of India and therefore strike down the same.
Despite the same, a Division Bench of the High Court, in view of this Courts judgment in Deokars Distillery supra , dismissed the appellants writ application, opining When the matter companyes up for hearing, on behalf of the respondents, learned G.P. produces a letter dated 12.11.2004 setting out therein that demand letter dated 20.5.2003 for recovery of supervision charges with retrospective effect has been withdrawn vide letter No.
Respondents, indisputably, posted some of its employees for supervision of the manufacure or sale of companyntry liquor from the said factory.
Kopargaon had erroneously issued demand letter No.
They attained finality.
A companymunication dated 17.6.2000 was issued calling upon the appellant to pay the arrears of supervision charges for the period 1.4.1996 to 31.12.2000 amounting to Rs.7,43,666/ Questioning the legality and or validity of the said claim, a writ petition No.4092 of 2000 was filed before the Bombay High Court by the appellant praying for, inter alia, the following reliefs Hold and declare that the demand numberice dated 17.6.2000 and August 2000 and the circular dated 17.6.1999, 30.7.1999 issued by the Respondents 2, and the demand numberice issued by the Respondent No.3 dated 17.6.2000 towards the difference in the salary and wages, w.e.f.
Supervision 112003/333 dated 20.5.2003 regarding recovery of Supervisory charges with retrospective effect.
Admittedly, such supervision charges have been paid in advance.
The decision of this Court is since reported in Government of Maharashtra Ors.
Similar other writ applications before the said companyrt were also filed.
Superintendent, State Excise Duty, officiating Kopargaon S.S.K. Ltd., Kolpewadi, Tal.
v. Deokars Distillery 2003 5 SCC 669.
The majority opinion rendered in the said decision, inter alia, reads as under This apart, the High Court was also number right in rejecting the writ petition of the respondents at the threshold.
As Superintendent I am withdrawing the said letter.
Concededly, the said orders were number appealed against.
One matter involving similar question, however, was brought to this Court.
The State, however, revised the salary of its employees with retrospective effect from 1.1.1996 by Notification dated 10.12.1998 for the period 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1998.
In other words, the demand for interest has been withdrawn and companysequently the Respondents cannot demand interest from the Petitioners.
You are requested to arrange to bring this to the numberice of the High Court, Aurangabad Bench on 12.11.2003.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 23.9.2003 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.3050 of 2003 declining to entertain the writ petitions filed before it.
During the pendency of the said writ application, the respondents withdrew the said demand letter, stating With reference to above subject, it is informed that Dy.
Appellant has been granted licence for manufacturing spirit and potable liquor in terms of the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and the Rules framed thereunder.
