Dismissed

Sudarshan Uttam Narkhade v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Sept 2014WP/2977/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-payment of salary and claimed deletion of another appointee's name to resume duties as School Librarian. The Court held that factual disputes on appointment, termination, and salary require investigation beyond writ jurisdiction. The petition was disposed of without declaring it maintainable or grantable, reserving issues for alternative efficacious remedies.

What did the court decide?

Petition stands disposed of. Issues regarding employment status, termination, and salary kept open for appropriate remedy.

Sudarshan Uttam Narkhade Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp2977.13.sxw

¶2

1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2977 OF 2013

¶5

Sudarshan Uttam Narkhade	...	Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & others	...	Respondents

¶6

Mr. A.M. Joshi for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Vishal Thadani, AGP for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. S.S. Shah for respondent no.3.

¶8

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ .

¶9

16th September, 2014.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

The petitioner claims that he was appointed as a Librarian in the year 1985 since then he is working in the School run by the trust. In the year 2009 it is alleged that one Mahavir Lade was appointed. The petitioner was restrained from discharging his duties as a Librarian. Inspite of approval granted it is submitted that petitioner was not paid salary, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court raising all these issues.

¶12

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is informed that Mr. Lade who was appointed in place of petitioner has left the job.

¶13

2/3 wp2977.13.sxw

¶14

The post is available. So the petitioner can be considered and allowed to resume duties as librarian. It is further submitted that in view of approval granted earlier by the Education Officer, the respondent-trust shall disburse arrears of salary in favour of the petitioner.

¶15

The respondent-trust filed affidavit-in-reply. They have objected to the statement made that petitioner was appointed as Librarian to serve in the school run by the trust. It is the case of trust that petitioner was appointed as librarian with the trust in the year 1985. In 2007 vacancy arose in the school. On compassionate basis the petitioner was allowed to discharge duties as Librarian in school but in accordance with the procedure, fresh advertisement was issued in the year 2009 and one Mahavir Lade was selected a Librarian to serve in the school. In substance the learned Counsel submits that petitioner was never appointed since beginning to serve in the library of the school. He was basically an employee working with the trust library.

¶16

We have gone through the record and considered the submissions advanced. The issues raised before us require examination of questions of facts. On certain crucial issues, the respondent has raised disputes which cannot be gone into in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. In case petitioners raises an issue of otherwise termination than the petitioner may resort to alternate efficacious remedy. In respect of monetary claim petitioner may resort to appropriate remedy as consideration of the same too would require investigation of facts and consideration of rival contentions.

¶17

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of claim made by the petitioner and in view of the observations made by us as above, the petition

¶18

3/3 wp2977.13.sxw

¶19

stands disposed of.

¶20

The issues already raised herein, if any, by the contesting parties are kept open.

¶21

(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶22

L.S. Panjwani, P.S.

Sudarshan Uttam Narkhade v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudarshan Uttam Narkhade v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Mr Iranna Munyappa Wanyalolu Vs the Special Appellate Authority, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.

Manisha Shankarrao Dhawle Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. a. P. Gurgule Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept

Sudarshan Uttam Narkhade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Udaram Bapurao Likhar Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune and Ors.

The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyala Sangathan and Ors. Vs Smt. P. M. Mulay