Disposed

Smt. Sapana Nagnath Malabade v. President, Kailaswasi Rajesh Kothe Prathmic Shala and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Feb 2016WP/10118/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning employment grievance regarding non-payment of increment, the High Court of Bombay directed the Education Officer to conduct a fresh hearing of the petitioner and management representative and decide the issue within three months without expressing an opinion on the claim.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Education Officer to hear the petitioner and representative afresh and decide the claim within three months.

Smt. Sapana Nagnath Malabade Vs President, Kailaswasi… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1/2

¶2

wp-10118-14.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.10118 OF 2014

¶5

Smt.Sapana Nagnath Malabade ...Petitioner v/s. President, Kailaswasi Rajesh Kothe Primary School and ors. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr.A.B.Tajane for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr.Shrishail Sakhare for the Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL &

¶9

A.A.SAYED, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 9 FEBRUARY 2016

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

It is submitted that the Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant teacher on 27 July 2010. This date is disputed by the Management. According to learned Counsel for the Management the Petitioner was appointed on 19 February 2011.

¶13

The Petitioner's grievance is that her increment for the period between July 2013 to July 2014 was not given to her. Repeatedly representations were made to the Higher Authorities, but no decision was taken. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brought to our notice an order dated 7 March 2014 of the Deputy Director of Education addressed to the Education Officer, Primary, Zilla Parishad. Pursuant to the said order the Education Officer had not conducted hearing and no decision has been communicated.

1/2

Uday P. Kambli

2/2

wp-10118-14.doc

We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Management. Both the Counsel submit that in case a fresh hearing is ordered, the parties would co-operate with the Education Officer.

¶19

Considering the documents placed on record and the submissions so advanced we pass following order:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

(i) We direct the Education Officer, Primary, Zilla Parishad, Solapur to hear the Petitioner and the representative of the Management in respect of the grievance of the Petitioner afresh.

¶22

(ii) The Education Officer shall decide the issue after scrutinizing the entire record and hearing the parties on its own merits.

¶23

(iii) We direct the Education Officer to decide the claim of the Petitioner within three months from today.

¶24

(iv) The Petitioner and the Representative of the Management shall appear before the Education Officer on 16 February 2016 at 11 a.m.

¶25

(v) It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the claim of the Petitioner.

¶26

The Petition is disposed of.

¶27

(A.A. SAYED, J.)

¶28

( NARESH H. PATIL J.)

¶29

2/2

¶30

Uday P. Kambli

Smt. Sapana Nagnath Malabade v. President, Kailaswasi Rajesh Kothe Prathmic Shala and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sapana Nagnath Malabade v. President, Kailaswasi Rajesh Kothe Prathmic Shala 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

M/S. Kartik International and Ors. Vs Central Bank of India and Ors.

Shri. Sharad Ganpat Pawar Vs the Govt. of Maharashtra and Ors.

Chirag Deepak Rajpal Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Caste Verification Committee and Anr.

Smt. Sapana Nagnath Malabade Vs President, Kailaswasi Rajesh Kothe Prathmic Shala and Ors.

Shri. Dnyaneshwar Ankush Talkatkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Dept and Ors.

Bhausaheb Kashinath Phadtale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.