Disposed

Vishnu Chandrakant Bargande v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Oct 2014WP/3773/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad Solapur (Secondary), to decide on the merits of granting approval to the petitioner's services within three months. It maintained an ad-interim order for salary payment until a reasoned order is passed.

What did the court decide?

Directed Education Officer to decide on merits of service approval within 3 months after hearing; ad-interim salary payment order maintained.

Vishnu Chandrakant Bargande Vs State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp3773.13.sxw

¶2

1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3773 OF 2013

¶5

Vishnu Chandrakant Bargande ... Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents

¶6

Mr. G.N. Salunkhe i/b. Mr. Umesh Kurund for the petitioner.

¶7

Ms. Neha Bhide, AGP for State-respondents 1 and 3. Mr. S.B. Sitar for respondent no.3. Mr. S.G. Kudle for respondent no.4. Mr. Vijay Killedar for respondent no.4. Mr. G.L. Ghule, representative of respondent no.4 in person.

¶8

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

¶9

7th October , 2014.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

The petitioner claims that he was appointed as a clerk. His services were approved by Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Solapur but by order dated 6th July, 2011 which is impugned herein the Education Officer stayed the approval granted. It is submitted that the stay granted by the Education Officer was vacated and later on by communication dated 6th March, 2013 the order of vacation of stay was cancelled meaning thereby the stay to grant of approval continues. The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 6th March, 2013.

¶12

2/3 wp3773.13.sxw

¶13

We have heard learned Counsel Mr. Kudle and Mr. Killedar. Both claim that they have been authorized to appear on behalf of respondent no.4. A partyin-person Mr. G.L. Ghule appears today in the Court and submits that he is authorized to represent respondent no.4. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel and party-in-person submitted that a dispute is pending before the Charity Commissioner as to who represented the Managing Committee which got elected in the year 2004 and 2007. The Change report filed by both the rival parties are pending consideration of the Charity Commissioner. The party-inperson refers to order passed by the Single Judge of this Court (J.H. Bhatia, J) in WP No. 2532/07 on 10th August, 2007. It is submitted that the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Solapur was directed to dispose of Change Report No. 512/1997 as well as other Change Reports as expeditiously as possible and in any case within six months.

¶14

We do not express any opinion in respect of the contentions raised by the contesting parties regarding pending change reports before the Charity Commissioner. However, the issue as to whether approval to the services of the petitioner needs to be granted or not is required to be decided on its own merits by the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad (Secondary) Solapur. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner, we direct Education Officer to decide the issue as to whether approval needs to be granted to the petitioner's services or not? By going through the entire relevant record and after hearing the necessary parties, concerned authorities are directed to pass a brief reasoned order. The concerned authority shall complete this exercise and pass reasoned order within three months from the date of communication of this order. The order passed by the Education Officer shall be communicated to the petitioner. Till then the ad-interim relief granted by this Court in respect of

¶15

3/3 wp3773.13.sxw

¶16

payment of salary and allowance as admissible to the post shall be in operation.

¶17

With aforesaid directions, Writ Petition is disposed of .

¶18

In case, the order passed by the Education Officer is adverse to the petitioner, he is at liberty to resort to appropriate remedy as permissible in law.

¶19

(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.)

¶20

(NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶21

L.S. Panjwani, P.S.

Vishnu Chandrakant Bargande v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Chandrakant Bargande v. 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

Sarsenapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissoner of Sugar, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Mahesh Balwant Arjunwadkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Irgonda Melappa Biradar Vs the Union of India through the Ministry of Law and Justice and Ors.

Union of India Thruogh General Manager and Anr. Vs Rajesh a. Bharte and Ors.

Shri. Peres Pezarkar Vs the Shipping Corporation of India and Ors.

Sahakari Bank Karmachari Sangh Vs the President, the Board of Liquidator, Solapur Nagari Audyogik Sah. Bank Ltd.