JUDGMENT :

MAULIK J.SHELAT, J.

1. At the outset, Mr. Jay K. Koshti, learned advocate for the petitioners would state that he has an instruction to appear on behalf of all the petitioners and Mr. A. S. Ashtavadi, learned advocate appearing for some of the petitioners is no longer appearing in the matter. Moreover, this Court vide its order dated 23.02.2026 passed the following order:

“[1] When the matter was taken up for hearing, it is reported that Mr. K.R.Koshti, learned advocate for some of the petitioners as also Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate for respondent No.2, have filed a sick note and leave note, respectively.

[2] Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for respondent Nos.3 & 4 would state that there is an urgency on the part of the respondent –Corporation in the matter as the scheme in which the petitioners’ services have been highered, has been discontinued by the State long back and it would not be possible for the Corporation to bear the salary expense of the petitioners.

[3] In that view of the matter, S. O. to 10th March, 2026. It is made clear that, on the next date of hearing, sick note or leave note will not be entertained of the advocates concerned.”

2. In view of the aforesaid order and considering the urgency pressed by the respective learned advocates, and so also the aforesaid fact that Mr. Koshti, learned advocate is appearing for all the petitioners, the matter is finally heard despite the fact that Mr. Ashtavadi, learned advocate is on a sick note.

3. Heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Jay K. Koshti, learned advocate for the petitioners, Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Jay Trivedi, learned AGP for the respondent No. 1, Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2, Mr. Prashant Desai, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 3, 4.

4. Before adverting to the issue germane to the matter, I would like to first refer the order of admission passed by this Court in this matter on 15.10.2018 which reads thus:

“In view of the statement of learned advocate Mr. A. S. Asthavadi for the petitioners that the facts of the case and the issue involved herein is similar to one involved in Special Civil Application No. 19872 of 2017 as well as Special Civil Application No. 15653 of 2018, there shall be Rule in this petition.

To be heard with the aforesaid petitions.

The respondents are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the service conditions of the petitioners during the pendency of the petition.

Direct service is permitted.”

5. There was a conscious statement made by learned advocate for the petitioners that the facts of the present case are similar to Special Civil Application No. 19872 of 2017 as well as Special Civil Application No. 15653 of 2018 and the petitioners are similarly situated with the petitioners of those petitions. It further appears that as per the aforesaid order, this petition was required to be heard with the said petition, but not heard.

6. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the aforesaid writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 19872 of 2017 is already decided by learned Single Judge of this Court vide its judgment dated 12.06.2025 along with other allied matters, whereby all the writ petitions were dismissed. It is also pointed out to this Court that the matters were carried before the Division Bench of this Court being Letters Patent Appeal No. 849 of 2025 and others and the Division Bench vide its judgment and order dated 17.07.2025 dismissed the appeals filed by original petitioners. As a last attempt, the petitioners had also approached the Supreme Court of India where also, the Special Leave Petitions filed by original petitioners came to be dismissed/not entertained.

6.1. Ms. Shah, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 would also place reliance upon ot