1. Though the petitioners have not followed the directions given vide order dated 20/03/2012, instead of dismissing the petition, present petition is restricted to petitioner no.1 only and is not entertained with reference to petitioner nos.2 to 20.
2. So far as claim of petitioner no.1 is concerned, in present petition, the petitioner has claimed that the competent authority has already issued direction dated 26/07/2011. Learned advocate for the petitioner has also submitted that the said communication and direction dated 26/07/2011 has not been challenged by respondent no.1. He also submitted that on one hand respondent no.1 has not challenged the said direction dated 26/07/2012 and on other hand they are not complying the said direction. Therefore, the petitioner has filed present petition.
3. On perusal of the communication dated 26/07/2011 (Annexure-E, page-51), it is noticed that the competent authority has directed respondent no.1 to grant the pay scale and dearness allowance to the employees as per the details mentioned in communication dated 26/07/2011.
4. Thus, the direction relates to service condition of the petitioner.
5. In view of the nature and scope of the petition and relief prayed for by the petitioner, it is noticed that under the provisions of Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947, there is statutory alternative remedy provided under the Act in view of which the petitioner should approach learned Education Tribunal for adjudication of his claim and grievance.
6. In view of the fact that there is statutory alternative remedy available to the petitioner and considering the nature and scope of the petition which involves the issue of the petitioner's grievance related to service condition/benefits, it appears that the said dispute can be effectively examined and adjudicated by the learned Tribunal.
7. Therefore, petition is not entertained on the said limited ground and the petitioner is relegated to the Tribunal. Present petition is entertained for petitioner no.1 only and other petitioners i.e. petitioner nos.2 to 20 are not considered as petitioners before this Court.
8. With the aforesaid clarification, the petition stands disposed of.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) (ila) Top