Partly allowed

Panjabrao S/O Ratan Rathod v. the Joint Director of Higher Education Amravati and Others

Bombay HC17 Apr 2014WP/2022/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged illegal non-release of salary as Registrar. Court noted lack of written appointment approval but held salary refusal without hearing unlawful. Writ petition partly allowed with direction to decide approval within one month after appearance of parties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner partly allowed; Respondent No.1 directed to decide appointment approval within one month after appearance of petitioner and management.

Panjabrao S/O Ratan Rathod Vs the Joint… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 wp2022.13.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2022 OF 2013

¶4

[Panjabrao s/o Ratan Rathod .vs. The Joint Director of Higher Education, Amravati Region, Amravati and others]

¶5

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

- - - - Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for the petitioner, Mrs. K.S. Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1, Shri C.V. Jagdale, Advocate for respondent nos.2, 3 and 4.

¶7

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND

¶8

A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶9

DATED : APRIL 17, 2014.

¶10

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the action of the respondent no.1-Joint Director of Higher Education, Amravati Region, Amravati of refusing to release the salary of the petitioner with effect from 1.11.2012 for the post of Registrar is illegal.

¶11

According to the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Registrar by the respondent no.2-Management. According to the petitioner, the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Registrar was approved by the respondent no.1. By a communication issued by the respondent no.1 to the respondent no.3-Principal of the college in which the petitioner was appointed, dated 13.9.2012, the pay of the petitioner on the post of Registrar was fixed by protecting his pay on the post held by him previously. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner was working on the post of Registrar and was paid the salary of the Registrar till October, 2012, the respondent no.1

¶12

2 wp2022.13.odt

¶13

illegally refused to release the salary of the petitioner from the month of November, 2012. Since the salary grants in respect of the petitioner were not released by the respondent no.1, the respondent no.2-Management reverted the petitioner on the post of the Superintendent, which he was holding before his appointment on the post of Registrar. According to the petitioner, the action on the part of the respondent no.1 in not releasing the salary and the resultant action on the part of the respondent no.3 in reverting the petitioner is bad in law. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was not heard by the respondent no.1 before refusing to release the salary grants in respect of the petitioner. It is submitted that the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Registrar could not have been cancelled without hearing the petitioner.

¶14

Mrs. K.S. Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1, submitted that this is not a case of cancellation of approval as submitted on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has not pointed out that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Registrar was duly approved by the respondent no.1. It is submitted that it is, no doubt, true that the respondent no.1 had communicated to the respondent no.3 on 13.9.2012 that the approval was granted to the pay-scale payable to the petitioner for holding the post of the Registrar by protecting his previous pay on the post of the Superintendent. It is, however, fairly admitted by the respondent no.1 that no hearing was granted to the petitioner before refusing to release the salary grants in respect of the petitioner.

¶15

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that there is no order approving the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Registrar. It, however, appears from the

¶16

3 wp2022.13.odt

¶17

communication issued by the respondent no.1 to the respondent no.3 dated 13.9.2012 that after the petitioner was appointed on the post of Registrar, by protecting his previous pay on the post which the petitioner was holding, sanction was granted to the pay-scale payable to the petitioner for holding the post of Registrar. It appears that the petitioner must have worked on the post of Registrar for a period of nearly five months and the respondent no.1 without hearing the petitioner and the management stopped releasing the salary payable to the petitioner for the post of Registrar since November, 2012. It was necessary for the respondent no.1 to hear the management and the petitioner before refusing to release the salary of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not qualified to be appointed on the post of Registrar. Since the petitioner was not heard by the respondent no.1 before stopping the salary grants, the petition needs to be partly allowed.

¶18

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The respondent no.1 is directed to decide the question of grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Registrar within a period of one month from the date of appearance of the petitioner and the management before the respondent no.1. The petitioner and the management undertake to appear before the respondent no.1 on 5.5.2014. Order accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶19

JUDGE

¶20

JUDGE

¶21

Gulande

Panjabrao S/O Ratan Rathod v. the Joint Director of Higher Education Amravati and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panjabrao S/O Ratan Rathod v. the Joint Director of Higher Education Amravati and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dadarao Gopalrao Ambhore and Anr. Vs Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Ku. Vandana Mahadeorao Kodape and Others Vs the Social Welfare Officer and Others

Bhikamsingh S/O Kisansingh Cour Vs Municipal Council and Two Ors.

Dadasaheb Vasantrao Bende Vs Caste Scrutiny Committee for S.T., Amravati and Ors.

Shrikant S/O Shridhar Deshpande Vs the State of Maharshtra through Its Secretary Higher and Technical Education Dept. Mumbai and Other

Yugantar Shikshan Sanstha Nagpur through Vice President Dr. Tulsidas S/O Vithuji Gedam Vs State of Mah. through Secretary Social Welfare Dept. Mumbai and 2 Others