Dismissed

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

Bombay HC16 Apr 2014WP/3542/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought directions to the Social Welfare Officer for salary payment and enquiry against respondents. The High Court held that serious disputed questions of fact existed regarding salary payment, which precluded deciding the issue in writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with no order as to costs, points kept open.

Ku. Vandana Mahadeorao Kodape and Others Vs the Social… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1/3

¶2

wp3542.1 3

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3542 OF 2013

¶5

Ku.Vandana Kodape and others

¶6

-vs-

¶7

The Social Welfare Officer and others

¶8

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶9

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶10

None for the petitioners. Mr.A.S.Fulzele, AGP for the respondent No.1. Mr.A.D.Dangore, counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 16.04.2014.

¶13

By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the Social Welfare Officer to conduct an enquiry against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for unnecessary harassment of the petitioners. The petitioners also seek a direction to the Management to pay the salary of the petitioners from the date of their appointment till the date of the filing of the petition and further continue to pay the regular salary of the petitioners.

¶14

According to the petitioners, the petitioners were appointed on the post of special teachers, caretakers, cooks, etc. on probation. According to the petitioners though their proposal was sent to the Social Welfare Officer for approval, the same was rejected. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are not paid the salary, as their appointments were not approved by the Social Welfare Officer. It is

¶15

2/3

¶16

wp3542.1 3

¶17

averred in the petition that the Management had secured the signatures of the petitioners on blank papers at the time of their appointment and the petitioners were then threatened on the basis of the said documents.

¶18

The respondent No.1 has filed the affidavit-inreply and it is stated therein that it would be the responsibility of the Management to pay the salary of the petitioners, as the services of the petitioners are not approved by the Social Welfare Officer.

¶19

The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have also filed an affidavit-in-reply. It is stated in the affidavit-in-reply that the petitioners had submitted their resignations and the same were accepted by the Management. It is further stated in the affidavit-in-reply that the arrears of salary is paid to the petitioners and nothing is due and payable to the petitioners.

¶20

On a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3, it appears that there is word against word in respect of the allegations made by the petitioners against the Management. It is the case of the petitioners that the salary is unpaid and they are entitled to the same. Some documents are, however, annexed to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to show that salary was paid to the petitioners. According to the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioners had acknowledged the receipt of the arrears of salary. On a reading of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, it appears that serious disputed questions of facts arise for determination in this writ petition. The question whether the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have actually paid the salary to the

¶21

3/3

¶22

wp3542.1 3

¶23

petitioners or not could be decided only after the parties are granted an opportunity of tendering evidence. It would not be possible for this Court to decide the issue involved in this case, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.

¶24

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶25

The points raised in the petition are, however,

¶26

kept open.

¶27

JUDGE JUDGE

¶28

KHUNTE

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Union of India and 3 Others. Vs Smt.Kamalabai Hari Boarkar.

Sahebrao S/O Vitthalrao Raut and 7 Others Vs the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad Washim and Another

Shri Vishwanath Narayanrao Garde Vs the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad Washim and Another

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

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

Shankarrao Adgaonkar Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., Min. of Urban Land Dev. and 2 Ors.