Partly allowed

Amar Ramchandra Bhalerao v. Education Inspector (West Zone) and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Feb 2015WP/737/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking approval of a part-time librarian appointment and salary arrears. The Court directed the respondent authority to grant approval for the tenure from April 2010 to April 2012 and release salary arrears for that period, noting the petitioner left the job after two years.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to grant appointment approval for part-time librarian from April 29, 2010 to April 30, 2012 and release salary arrears for this period within three months.

Amar Ramchandra Bhalerao Vs Education… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

23.WP737_2013.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 737 OF 2013

¶5

Amar Ramchandra Bhalerao … Petitioner vs. Education Inspector (West Zone) & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Makrand Bakore, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. I.C. Calcuttawala, AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶7

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & C.V. BHADANG, JJ. DATE : 2^nd February, 2015.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents/authorities to consider the proposal to the appointment of the petitioner as a part time librarian with effect from 27^th April, 2010. The petitioner also seeks a direction for releasing the arrears of salary due and payable to the petitioner from 29^th April, 2010 till the disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶10

The petitioner was appointed as a part-time librarian by the respondent/management after following the due procedure. The petitioner was appointed by the appointment order dated 27^th April, 2010 and the petitioner joined his duties on 29^th April, 2010. The management sent the proposal of the petitioner in May, 2010 for grant of approval.

¶11

1 of 4

¶12

23.WP737_2013.doc

¶13

However, the respondent/authority declined to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner. In view of the refusal on the part of the respondent/authority to grant approval to the appointment, the petitioner has approached this Court with the aforesaid prayers.

¶14

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the clarificatory circular of the State Government dated 30^th November, 2010, the respondents/authorities were duty bound to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner. It is stated that the approval was wrongly refused and the petitioner left the service in the month of April, 2012, as he was not paid the salary for the period of almost two years. It is stated that a direction be issued to the respondents to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner for the period during which the petitioner has worked as a part-time librarian and also for the subsequent period, as the petitioner had to leave the job for no fault of the petitioner. It is stated that a direction be issued to the State Government to pay the arrears of salary for the period from 29^th April, 2010 till April, 2012.

¶15

Ms. Calcuttawala, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent/authority submitted that in view of the circular dated 10^th June, 2010 there was a ban on recruitment and hence the respondent/authority refused to grant approval to the

¶16

2 of 4

¶17

23.WP737_2013.doc

¶18

appointment of the petitioner. It is, however, not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the respondent/management runs the school which receives the grant-in-aid and if the petitioner is entitled to approval for the period from April, 2010 to April, 2012, the State Government would be liable to pay the salary.

¶19

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the respondent/authority was not justified in refusing to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner. The appointment of the petitioner was admittedly made by the order dated 27^th April, 2010 and the petitioner joined his duties on 29^th April, 2010. The management had sent the proposal of the petitioner to the respondent/authority in May, 2010, i.e., before the ban on recruitment was imposed by the State Government by the circular dated 10^th June, 2010. The clarificatory circular dated 30^th November, 2010 clearly applied to the case of the petitioner and it was necessary for the respondent/authority to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner, as the ban was imposed after his appointment. However, unfortunately, the petitioner left the job on April, 2012 and hence, the petitioner would not be entitled to approval beyond the said period. The petitioner would, however, be entitled for the approval for a period of two years, i.e. from 29^th April, 2010 till 30^th April, 2012 and also the arrears of salary for the said period.

¶20

3 of 4

¶21

23.WP737_2013.doc

¶22

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as a part-time librarian from 29^th April, 2010 to 30^th April, 2012 and also release the arrears of salary for the said period within a period of three months.

¶23

Order accordingly. No costs.

¶24

(C.V. BHADANG, J.)

¶25

(VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

¶26

4 of 4

Amar Ramchandra Bhalerao v. Education Inspector (West Zone) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Ramchandra Bhalerao v. Education Inspector (West Zone) 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

Shirish R. Kale Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Mrs.Rashmi Mahesh Tawade Vs the Clare Road Jesus and Mery Society and 4 Ors.

Sunil Babani H.U.F. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 53 Ors.

Shri Mahadeo Bajirao Nagane Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

M/S. Anupam Developers through It'S Constituted Attorney Mr. Surinder Singh Solar Vs Shri. Gangadhar Narayan Biwalkar and Ors.

Ghulam Rasool Abdul Wahid Khwaja and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through S.D.O. and Spl. Land Acqusition Officer and Ors.