Allowed

Ramesh Madhavrao Dode v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC16 Jun 2016WP/1477/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Oral judgment allowed a writ petition filed by a Shikshan Sevak belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category who was underpaid. The court directed the Zilha Parishad to pay the petitioner's salary in the Assistant Teacher pay scale from the date he completed his three-year tenure as Shikshan Sevak, and ordered the Scrutiny Committee to decide his caste validation claim expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to pay monthly salary in the Assistant Teacher pay scale from 2.1.2011 onwards, including the difference of salary within six months, and to decide the caste validation claim

Ramesh Madhavrao Dode Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp 1477.16.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1477 OF 2016

¶5

Ramesh S/o Madhavrao Dode, age: 34 years, occu: service as Shikshan Sevak with Zilha Parishad High School, Manur Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad presently residing at Manur Tq. Vijapur, Dist. Aurangabad Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 The State of Maharashtra Department of Sports & Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 through Its Secretary

¶8

2 The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad through : Its Member Secretary

¶9

3 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilha Parishad, Aurangabad

¶10

4 The Education Officer (Primary), Zilha Parishad, Aurangabad

¶11

5 The Head Master Zilha Parishad High School, Manur Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad Respondents

¶12

Mr.S.C. Yeramwar advocate for the petitioner

¶13

Mr.A.R. Kale, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mr.C.D. Biradar advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 5

¶14

CORAM : R.M. BORDE &

¶15

K.L.WADANE, JJ

¶16

(Date : 16^th June, 2016.)

{2}

wp 1477.16.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: R.M. Borde, J)

1 Heard.

¶22

2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final decision at admission stage.

¶23

3 The petitioner belongs to Koli Mahadev, scheduled tribe (ST) and was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak in the school, operated by the Zilha Parishad on 29.12.2007, as against a seat prescribed for ST category. The petitioner states that, the caste certificate issued to him, certifying that he belongs to ST category has been forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee and the validation claim is not yet decided and the matter remained pending. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has completed three years tenure as Shikshan Sevak on 2.1.2011. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, although he has completed the tenure of appointment as Shikshan Sevak and is continued in employment of Zilha Parishad, he is being paid salary prescribed for the post of Shikshan Sevak and is not being paid salary in the pay scale prescribed for Assistant Teacher. The Zilha Parishad ought to pay the salary to the petitioner in the pay scale prescribed for the post of Assistant Teacher after completion of service tenure of three years as

¶24

{3} wp 1477.16.odt

¶25

Shikshan Sevak from the date of his appointment.

¶26

4 It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner is continued

¶27

in the employment and has completed tenure of three years as Shikshan Sevak. In this view of the matter, we direct the respondents No.3 to 5 to pay the monthly salary to the petitioner in the pay scale prescribed for Assistant Teacher since the date of his completion of tenure as a Shikshan Sevak i.e. from 2.1.2011 onwards and shall continue to pay the salary in the pay scale of Assistant Teacher. The difference of salary shall be paid within a period of six months from today.

¶28

5 The respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide caste validation claim of the petitioner, pending with the Scrutiny Committee as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year from today.

¶29

6 Rule is made absolute to the extent specified above.

¶30

7 No order as to costs.

¶31

(K.L.WADANE, J) (R.M.BORDE, J)

¶32

vbd

Ramesh Madhavrao Dode v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Madhavrao Dode v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Saiprakash Ramkishan Uppod through Legal Guardian Ramkishan Piraji Uppod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rajaram Laxman Mupade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Chandrakant Bhaskar Mhaske Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nandakumar Bhujangrao Pujari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Chetana Nitin Pawar Alias Charulatta Ganesh Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramesh Ramnath Mantri and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others