Allowed

Kishore Nilkanth Thakur v. the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Aug 2009WP/1695/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Bombay, allowed a writ petition seeking arrears of salary. The court directed the Education Officer to pay the petitioner salary and consequential benefits from the date of appointment (2/12/02) until 31/5/05, allowing for a claim of interest.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be paid salary and consequential benefits from 2/12/02 to 31/5/05. Liberty given to seek interest on the amount.

Kishore Nilkanth Thakur Vs the Education… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

mss

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1695 OF 2009

¶6

KISHOR NILKANTH THAKUR ..

¶7

.. PETITIONER

¶8

Vs.

¶9

THE EDUCATION OFFICER (SECONDARY) ZILLA PARISHAD NASHIK & ORS.

¶10

.. RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr. S.P. Shinde for the petitioner

¶12

Mrs. S.S. Bhende, AGP

¶13

CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI &

A. A. SAYED, JJ.

DATED: 12/8/2009

P.C.

The petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk on 30/11/2002.

¶18

He joined the duty on 2/12/02. On 23/2/06, the Education Officer,

¶19

Zilla Parishad, Nashik approved the petitioner’s appointment from the

¶20

date of appointment. However, he sanctioned his salary from a later

¶21

date i.e. from 1/6/05 and not from the date of his appointment i.e.

¶22

¶23

from 2/12/02. In the letter of approval dated 23/2/06 the Education Officer stated that the petitioner will get salary from 1/6/05.

¶24

Thereafter the petitioner filed an application before the Education Officer Zilla Parishad, Nashik on 25/7/06 seeking payment of his salary from 2/12/02, however the Education Officer did not even reply to his letter. The petitioner, therefore, sent another letter dated 6/5/08. There was no response to this letter also. The petitioner, therefore, made an application dated 21/5/08 to the Deputy Director, Nashik Division, Nashik.

¶25

By letter dated 5/6/2008 the Deputy Director directed the Education Officer that appropriate action be taken on the petitioner’s application and the matter may be reported to his office. By letter dated 11/7/08, the Education Officer confirmed the decision of the then Education Officer dated 23/2/06 thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking payment of his salary from the date of his appointment. Thereafter the petitioner made another application, however, his application was not considered. It is against the backdrop of these facts that the petitioner has approached this court.

¶26

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. He reiterated the averments made in the petition. We have heard learned AGP.

¶27

¶28

She has taken us through the affidavit of Baban K. Dahiphale, Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Nashik.

¶29

In our opinion, the grievance of the petitioner is justified. If the petitioner’s appointment was approved on 2/12/02 the petitioner must get his salary including Dearness Allowance, Housing Allowance and all other consequential benefits from 2/12/02. In the affidavit it is stated that as per the usual practice remarks which are made in the letter dated 23/2/06 are not made while granting approval to the appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff and the reasons for making such remarks are within the personal knowledge of the then Education Officer (Secondary).

¶30

In the circumstances, in our opinion, the petitioner is entitled to payment of salary and other consequential benefits from the date of approval of his appointment i.e. from 2/12/02. Hence, we direct that the petitioner be paid salary and other consequential benefits from 2/12/02 till 31/5/05 i.e. the period during which he has been denied the said payment. Payment be made expeditiously. Since the payment is wrongly withheld the petitioner may be entitled to interest thereon. The petitioner is at liberty to make a representation praying that he may be given interest on the said amount. That representation may be considered expeditiously and in accordance

¶31

¶32

with law.

¶33

Petition is disposed of.

¶34

Authorities to act on authenticated copy of this order provided by the office.

¶35

(Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.)

¶36

(A. A. Sayed, J.)

Kishore Nilkanth Thakur v. the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishore Nilkanth Thakur v. the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahatma Gandhi Vidya Mandir Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

President - Shramik Mahila Udyojak Sanstha Pune and Anr. Vs Prabha Gopal Jagatap and Ors.

Shri Rajkumar Shridhar Pawar Vs the Secretary, Swami Vivekanand Hkshan Sanstha and or S

Guruwarya Dadasaheb Bowa Shikshan Sanstha Vs Education Officer (Secondary) - Zilla Parishad, Nasik and Ors.

Kalya Dharma Patil and Ors. Vs the Maharashtra State, through Its Department of Urban Development and Anr.

Akshay a. Agarwal Vs Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Ulhasnagar and Ors.