1 17-CA 635-2021+.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 635 OF 2021 IN RAST/544/2021 State Of Maharashtra And Others .. Applicants Versus Madhukar Mitharam Mali And Others .. Respondents WITH REVIEW APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 544 OF 2021 State Of Maharashtra And Others .. Applicants Versus Madhukar Mitharam Mali And Others .. Respondents Mr. R. S. Wani, A.G.P. for Applicants. Mr. Bhaktraj L. Patil, Advocate h/f Mr. Ajay D. Pawar, Advocate for Respondents/original petitioners. AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2127 OF 2021 IN RAST/20781/2020 State Of Maharashtra And Others .. Applicants Versus Satish Tukaram Bhole And Others .. Respondents WITH REVIEW APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 20781 OF 2020 State Of Maharashtra And Others .. Applicants Versus Satish Tukaram Bhole And Others .. Respondents 2026:BHC-AUG:47174-DB 2 17-CA 635-2021+.odt Mr. P. S. Patil, A.G.P. for Applicants. Mr. Bhaktraj L. Patil, Advocate h/f Mr. Ajay D. Pawar, Advocate for Respondents/original petitioners. AND REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 161 OF 2023 IN WP/4675/2017 State Of Maharashtra And Others .. Applicants Versus Rajendra Mukundrao Bhosale And Others .. Respondents Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. Bhaktraj L. Patil, Advocate h/f Mr. Ajay D. Pawar, Advocate for Respondents/original petitioners. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. DATE : 06th OCTOBER, 2026. PER COURT :- CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 635/2021 & CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2127/2021 : 1. Heard the parties. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay stands condoned. The civil applications are allowed and disposed of accordingly. IN ALL REVIEW APPLICATIONS : 1. Heard learned A.G.P. for the applicants and learned advocate Mr. Patil for respondents/original petitioners. 3 17-CA 635-2021+.odt 2. At the outset, learned A.G.P. submits that the Government has now come out with a policy by Government decision dated 14.03.2024 which covers the controversy involved in the present matters. The controversy was that the petitioners who happened to be Class-III and Class-IV employees were denied the benefits of second time Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS). The petitioners approached this Court. This Court allowed the petitions holding that the benefits need to be applied even to the Class-III and Class-IV employees. It is said judgment which is sought to be reviewed. Now by Government Resolution dated 14.03.2024 it is decided to extend the benefits even of the second time ACPS to the employees working in Class-III and Class-IV. It is further submitted that, there was a dispute as to whether the benefits of the Government Resolution are applicable with prospective or retrospective effect. It is clearly pointed out by learned A.G.P. that this Court in Writ Petition No. 6626/2024 (Nagpur Bench) and in Writ Petition No. 4733/2019 (Aurangabad Bench) has already taken a view that the provisions of the Government Resolution would be applicable with retrospective effect and the persons who are entitled to take benefit of second time ACPS even prior to issuance of Government Resolution also 4 17-CA 635-2021+.odt would be entitled to the benefits. 3. Considering all above, this Court finds that the review applications have become infructuous. Therefore, the review applications stand disposed of as infructuous. ( JITENDRA JAIN, J.) ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) P.S.B.