Partly allowed

Vijay S/O Namdevrao Uge v. State of Mah., Dept. of Education through Its Principal Secretary and 4 Others

Bombay HC20 Jun 2016WP/1020/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, allowed the writ petition partly on the basis that a full-time Librarian post exists in the petitioner's school for 2015-16. The court directed the petitioner to continue working there and ordered the Education Officer to decide the petitioner's final status within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to continue working at Respondent No.4-School; Respondent No.3 to decide status within eight weeks.

Vijay S/O Namdevrao Uge Vs State of Mah… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp1020.15

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1020 OF 2015 Vijay S/o Namdevrao Uge

¶5

..vs..

¶6

State of Maharashtra, Department of Education, Through its Principal Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 and ors

¶7

.............................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order

¶8

and Registrar's orders

¶9

Mrs. U.A. Patil, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Fulzele, AGP for R-1 & 3.

¶10

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & KUM. I.K. JAIN, JJ. DATED : JUNE 20, 2016.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the respective

¶12

parties.

¶13

The petitioner Librarian, found surplus in the Academic Year 2014-15, was asked to report to respondent No.5-School by impugned order dated 5.12.2014. The writ petition has been filed before this Court challenging that order on the ground that the petitioner has been wrongly declared as surplus. This Court has, on 9.3.2015 while issuing notice in the matter, granted ad interim relief. With this reason, the petitioner continues to work to respondent

.....2/-

wp1020.15

No.4-School.

Learned counsel Mrs. U.A. Patil for the petitioner has, today, produced before this Court staff justification for the Year 2015-16. According to her, when as on 30.9.2015 in aided school of respondent No.4 a post of Librarian on full time basis is available, the petitioner who is the only Librarian needs to be continued with respondent No.4-School only.

¶19

Learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri A.S. Fulzele for respondent Nos.1 and 3 is relying upon affidavit-in-reply. He further states that the documents, produced today, are not within his knowledge.

¶20

The documents produced by the petitioner are taken on record as “Exh.X”. These documents, prima facie , demonstrate that a full time post of Librarian is available as on 30.9.2015 with respondent No.4-School.

¶21

In this situation, we permit the petitioner to continue with respondent No.4-School only. Respondent No.3-Education Officer shall look into all relevant facts and take suitable decision upon the status of the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks. If necessary, an opportunity of hearing shall be extended to the petitioner. Till such decision is taken, the

.....3/-

wp1020.15

petitioner shall continue to work with respondent No.4-School.

¶26

The writ petition is thus partly allowed and disposed of. No costs.

¶27

JUDGE JUDGE

¶28

!! BRW !!

¶29

...../-

Vijay S/O Namdevrao Uge v. State of Mah., Dept. of Education through Its Principal Secretary and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay S/O Namdevrao Uge v. State of Mah., Dept. of Education through Its Principal Secretary and 4 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

Arjuna S/O Govinda Awachar through Their P.O.A. Holder, Sukhadeo S/O R. Shejul and Others Vs the Collector, Washim and 3 Others

Sanjay S/O Uttamrao Adsod and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Gadge Nagar Police Station, Amravati and Another

Iqbal Khan S/O Shafi Khan Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary to Home Dept. (Transport), Mumbai and Others

Ku. Huma Nargies D/O. Abdul Rafique Khatib Vs Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Nasik Thr Its Registrar and Others

Arunoday Magasvargiya Mazoor Kamgar Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Thr President Arvind H Gajbhiye Nagpur Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary, Dept of Revenue and Forests, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Smt.Anjali Ashok Samarth Vs the Education Officer (Secondary), Z. P. Nagpur and 2 Others