Single judge oral judgment where the High Court allowed a writ petition seeking a direction to decide a pending proposal regarding the petitioners time bound promotional scale within eight weeks.
Directing the Accounts Officer to decide the petitioners pending proposal for time bound promotional scale within eight weeks and communicate the decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.1605 OF 2009
Gokul s/o Uttam Sapkale,
Age : 44 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Walki, Tq. Chopda,
District : Jalgaon..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, District : Jalgaon
3. The Accounts Officer, Education Department (Secondary), Jalgaon, District Jalgaon ..RESPONDENTS
Mr Vinod P. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner;
Mr N.N. Jadhav, AGP for respondents.
CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND
R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 24th JUNE, 2009.
ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER P.V. HARDAS, J.]
2
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of learned Counsel for the parties this
petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.
2.The petitioner by this petition prays for
issuance of a writ directing respondent no.3 to decide
the pending proposal of the petitioner dated 23.1.2009
for grant of time bound promotional scale. In the
light of the limited relief which is sought for by the
petitioner in this petition, we deem it appropriate to
decide the petition at this stage.
3.We have heard Shri Vinod Patil, learned Counsel
for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. Shri N.N. Jadhav
on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3. In the light of
the fact that the said proposal of the petitioner is
pending consideration with respondent no.3, we are
inclined to allow this petition and direct the
respondents to decide the said proposal ion accordance
with law. The respondents may also examine the
question of entitlement of the petitioner for the
benefits of time bound promotional scale. The said
proposal to be decided by respondent no.3 within a
period of eight weeks from today.
3
4.Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Rule is
made absolute by directing respondent no.3 to decide
the proposal of the petitioner dated 23.1.2009 for
grant of benefit of time bound promotional scale, in
accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks
from today and communicate the decision thereon to the
petitioner. In the circumstances there will be no
order as to costs.
amj/wp1605.09
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ directing the respondent to decide his pending proposal for a time bound promotional scale.
Whether a direction under Article 226 is appropriate to ensure the decision on the promotional scale proposal is taken within a fixed time.
Gokul s/o Uttam Sapkale
The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon
The Accounts Officer, Education Department (Secondary), Jalgaon
P.V. Hardas
R.K. Deshpande
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court