Allowed

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

Bombay HC10 Aug 2009WP/5221/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the respondents to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 1,60,293/- determined by the Joint Director for Higher Secondary Division Pune as salary dues owed for the period of his service. The petitioner was a lecturer whose services were terminated, leading to this dispute over unpaid salary.

What did the court decide?

The first and second respondents are directed to pay the petitioner Rs. 1,60,293/- within 6 weeks from the date of the order.

Shri Rajkumar Shridhar Pawar Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 5221 OF 2008

¶3

Rajkumar Shridhar Pawar

¶4

V. The Secretary, Swami Vivekanand Sanstha & others

¶5

......Petitioner

¶6

....... Respondents

¶7

Mr. Shrishail Sakhare for the Petitioner Mr. Amit Borkar for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mrs.M.P. Thakur, AGP for the State

¶8

CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 10TH AUGUST, 2009.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1 The petitioner was serving with the 2nd respondent as a lecturer. He continued to be in the employment up to 30-6-2000. His services were terminated on 30-6-2000. He raised grievance before Pune/Shivaji University and College Tribunal (College Tribunal for short) that having been selected by Local Selection Body, he ought to have been given permanency. The College Tribunal dismissed the appeal. However, since nonpayment of salary from March to 19-6-2000 was admitted, the College Tribunal gave direction to the 1st and 2nd respondent to pay the said amount to the petitioner immediately. As regards the petitioner's claim that

¶11

difference in his salary from 1.9.1998 to 30.6.2000 was not paid, the College Tribunal observed that if the said payment was not made it shall be paid. The said order of the College Tribunal has assumed finality.

¶12

2 By order dated 23.6.2004 passed in Complaint No. 61 of 2001, the Grievance Committee directed the 1st respondent to pay to the petitioner whatever pay scale is available to him after deducting the amount already paid to him. The said order was challenged by the 1st respondent in Writ Petition No. 6793 of 2004. The said petition was disposed of by this Court on 6-8-2006. This Court observed that there has been no determination in respect of the amounts payable by the 1st respondent to the petitioner during the period he remained in service i.e. from 12.9.1998 to 30.6.2000. This Court observed that the exact amount needs to be determined. This Court therefore, directed the Joint Director for Higher Secondary Division Pune the 4th respondent herein to determine the amount payable to the petitioner after adjusting the amount already paid to him. The 1st respondent was directed to make due payment to the petitioner as determined by the 4th respondent. It appears that pursuant to the above order the 4th respondent has determined the amount to be paid to the petitioner. That amount has not been paid to the petitioner and hence the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶13

3 We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. He has reiterated the same submissions made in the petition. Affidavit in reply is filed by Shri Sorte In charge- Administrative Officer of the Joint Director, Higher Education, Pune. He has stated that in view of the order passed by this Court's dated 7-8-2006 appropriate order be passed.

¶14

4 Annexure A to the petition is the report of the 4th respondent dated 31-10-2006. The said report indicates the determination of the amount due to the petitioner pursuant to this Court's order dated 7-8-2006. As per that report the petitioner is entitled to receive Rs. 1,60,293/- as on the date of the report. By this report the 4th respondent has directed the 1st respondent to make the said payment to the petitioner.

¶15

5 In view of the above the petitioners grievance is justified. The petitioner must be paid the said amount. The petitioner's Counsel has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the said amount.

¶16

6 We are informed that the second respondent school gets grant-in-aid from the State of Maharashtra. If this statement is correct then the second respondent school may be reimbursed by the State of Maharashtra. We may also note that Mrs. Thakur, learned AGP has stated that she is unable to make a statement whether the second respondent is receiving grant-in-aid from the State of Maharashtra or not. In the circumstances in our opinion the following order would meet the ends of justice.

¶17

7 The first and second respondents are directed to pay the petitioner his dues as quantified by the 4^th respondent vide his order dated 31-10-2006. If the second respondent school is receiving grant-in-aid from the State of Maharashtra then the second respondent may be entitled to reimbursement from the State of Maharashtra in accordance with law. The payment be made within a period of 6 weeks from today. We have not expressed any opinion on the petitioner's claim for interest. He may agitate it with the respondents.

¶18

8 The petition is disposed of.

¶19

A.A. SAYED J. SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Sandeep Suhas Samant Vs the Commissioner, Thane Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Dr. Aspi B. Surveyor and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shankar Balu Thakur and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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.

Pakale Anil Murlidhar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.