Allowed

Inderkour Ratansingh Shiledar (Ragi) v. the State of Maharashtra, Thorugh the Principal Secretary

Bombay HC3 Dec 2010WP/3779/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition seeking directions to respondent authorities to absorb the petitioner and pay her salary. The court directed submission of complete pay bills, salary clearance, and imposed exemplary costs on the school administrator for adamant refusal to follow directions.

What did the court decide?

Response no. 4 directed to submit complete pay bills from 2nd December 2006; Response no. 2 to clear bills within three months; Response no. 3 to pay Rs. 10,000 costs.

Inderkour Ratansingh Shiledar (Ragi) Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3779 OF 2010

¶4

Inderkour Ratansingh Shiledar (Ragi), Age : 56 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Khalsa Colony, Quarter No.4, Nanded, Taluka and District : Nanded. .. Petitioner.

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.

¶7

The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, Taluka and District : Nanded.

¶8

Administrator, The Nanded Shri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib, Nanded, Taluka and District : Nanded.

¶9

The Head Master, Khalsa High School, Opp. Bafna Motors, Nanded, Taluka and District : Nanded. .. Respondents.

¶10

(2)

¶11

Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶13

Mr. P.V. Mandlik, Senior Advocate, with Mr. A.S. Gandhi, Advocate, for respondent nos.3 and 4.

¶14

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ.

¶15

DATE : 3RD DECEMBER 2010

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) :

¶17

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

¶18

2. The petitioner has filed the present petition, for a direction to the respondent nos.1 and 2, to take necessary action against respondent nos.3 and 4, for not sending the pay bills of the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondent nos.3 and 4, to make payment of the petitioner from October 2006, till today.

¶19

3. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the respondent no.4 / School in the year 1975. In the year

¶20

(3)

¶21

1988-89, he was promoted as Junior Lecturer. It is the contention of the petitioner, that subsequently she was promoted as Head Mistress in the year 1999. The said fact is disputed by the respondent nos.3 and 4. However, that may not be relevant for the purpose of the present petition, inasmuch as, a Writ Petition with regard to that issue is already pending before this Court.

¶22

4. It appears that in 2006, the Junior College run by the respondent nos.3 and 4 was closed and, as such, the respondent / Education Officer had directed the petitioner to be absorbed in the Secondary School. According to the petitioner, she has joined in the month of October 2006. However, since then the salary is not paid to her.

¶23

5. Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that though the petitioner has joined in the Secondary School in October 2006, neither the respondent nos.3 and 4 are submitting proposal to the Education Officer nor salary is being paid to the petitioner. It is submitted that though representations have been made to the respondent no.2 / Education Officer, no steps are taken. It is, therefore, submitted that the necessary orders, in that respect, are necessary to be passed against respondent nos.3 and 4.

¶24

(4)

¶25

6. Mr. P.V. Mandlik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 and 4, on the contrary, submits that on account of closure of the Junior College, six to seven persons were declared as surplus. It is stated that out of them, 2 teachers were absorbed in the Junior College at Kandhar, one at Udgir, one at NSB College and 2 Lecturers opted for voluntary retirement. It is submitted that since the present petitioner did not want to go out of Nanded, she refused to absorb as a teacher in some other Junior College. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

¶26

7. Mr. S.K. Tambe, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2, submits that though the respondent no.2 / Education Officer had directed the respondent nos.3 and 4 to absorb the petitioner, they had not joined and, as such, the respondent no.2 / Education Officer was required to go personally in the school, so as to see that the petitioner is permitted to join. It is submitted that this was done in July 2007 and the name of the petitioner was also included in the muster of the school. It is, however, submitted that the respondent no.4 has kept separate muster for the petitioner. It is further submitted that though in pursuance to the directions issued by the Education Officer, the respondent no.4 has sent the

¶27

(5)

¶28

bill, the same has been sent by keeping various lacunas. It is further submitted that respondent no.4 has stated in her letter that the respondent no.3 has directed that the petitioner should not be allowed to join the services.

¶29

8. The Education Officer, in his affidavit in reply, in paragraph 23, has categorically stated as under :

¶30

" It is crystal clear that the absorption and salary of the petitioner is not paid due to the adamant role of the management."

¶31

It, thus, appears to be clear position that though the respondent no.2 / Education Officer has issued clear directions to the respondent nos.3 and 4, to absorb the petitioner in the Secondary School against the posts which are already vacant, on one count or the other, the respondent nos.3 and 4 have refused to join the petitioner in service and send the bills, and when the bill is sent, it is sent with various lacunas. We are, therefore, in complete agreement with the stand taken by the Education Officer, that the attitude of the respondent nos.3 and 4 is adamant one and on account of that, the legitimate claim of the petitioner is being deprived. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the petition with exemplary costs.

¶32

(6)

¶33

9. At this stage, Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, graciously states that the petitioner is not interested in the costs and the costs be paid to the Library of Advocates' Association at this Bench.

¶34

10. In the result, the petition is allowed with costs.

¶35

(i) The respondent no.4 is directed to submit pay bills of the petitioner, from 2nd December 2006 i.e. the date on which the petitioner was directed to be absorbed by the respondent no.2 in the Secondary School, within a period of four weeks from today. It is made clear that the said bills shall be complete in all respects.

¶36

(ii) Upon receipt of the said bills, the respondent no.2 / Education Officer shall grant necessary approval and clear the bills and see to it that the payment is made within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the bills.

¶37

(iii) It is made clear that in the event, pay bills are not submitted by the respondent no.4 within the prescribed period, or if they are sent by keeping lacunas, the respondent no.2 shall stop payment of salary of the respondent no.4 / Head Master and also appoint an Administrator to administer the affairs of the

¶38

(7)

¶39

respondent no.4 / School, as it has been categorically observed by the Education Officer himself, that the respondent nos.3 and 4 are not obeying directions given by the respondent no.2 and indulging into adamant attitude.

¶40

(iv) The respondent no.3 is directed to pay costs of the petition, which is quantified at Rs. 10,000/- [Rupees ten thousand]. In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the respondent no.3 is directed to pay the costs to the Library of Advocates' Association at this Bench, within a period of two weeks from today and place receipt of the same, on record of the present petition. It is made clear that if the costs are not paid within a period of two weeks from today, the Court would initiate contempt proceedings against the Superintendent of respondent no.3 / Board.

¶41

11. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

¶42

( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶43

bgp/3779wp

Inderkour Ratansingh Shiledar (Ragi) v. the State of Maharashtra, Thorugh the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inderkour Ratansingh Shiledar (Ragi) v. the State of Maharashtra, Thorugh the Principal Secretary

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

Ter Large Size Multi Purpose Co. Operative Society Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sandeep Dattarao Lekule Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Maharashtra Rajya Prathmik Ksikshak Samittee Aurangbad Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

M/S Fertiland Industries,through M.D.Anilkumar Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Smt Haribai Mahadeo Thaware Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Sheshrao Bhanudas Kakde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.