Allowed

Prabhakar Baburao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC28 Nov 2016WP/2490/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a grant-in-aid Assistant Teacher whose school was de-recognized and later re-recognized while similarly situated colleagues were absorbed, seeks absorption based on lack of fault for de-recognition.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.4 to place the petitioner in the list of surplus candidates, absorb him as per his turn, and pay salary from the date of absorption.

Prabhakar Baburao Pawar Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

19wp2490.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2490 OF 2015

¶4

Mr. Prabhakar s/o Baburao Pawar… Petitioner
Age 40 years, Occu: Nil
R/o Takli, Tq. Chalisgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶7

2. The Director of Social Welfare, Maharashtra State, Pune.

¶8

3. The Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Nasik Division, Nasik.

¶9

4. The District Social Welfare Officer, Jalgaon.

¶10

5. Janit Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, … Respondents. Jalgaon, Through its President at Primary Ashram School, DandPimpri, Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.

¶11

Mr. S. R. Barlinge, Advocate for the petitioner,
Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, AGP for the respondents 1 to 4
Mr. P. B. Patil, h/for Mr. Ujwal Patil, advocate for
respondent No.5

¶12

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
 DATE:28th November, 2016

¶13

JUDGMENT:

¶14

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

1/4

¶16

19wp2490.odt

¶17

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With
consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final
disposal.

¶18

3. Mr. Barlinge, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as
Assistant Teacher in the year 1994 on grant-in-aid
basis. The petitioner's services were continued up to
the year 2004. In the year 2005, the school, where the
petitioner was working stood de-recognized. The learned
counsel submits that the similarly situated employees
had filed writ petition before this court. Writ
petition is allowed and those Assistant Teachers have
been absorbed. The learned counsel submits that the
petitioner is similarly situated. Only because the
petitioner had not filed any writ petition, the case
of the petitioner is not considered. According to the
learned counsel, the school, where the petitioner was
working is again recognized in the year 2010..

¶19

4. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for respondent

¶20

no.5 accepts that the petitioner was appointed in the
year 1999 and has worked up to 2003 on grant-in-aid
basis and in 2004 the school was de-recognized.

¶21

According to the learned counsel, in 2010, after the

¶22

2/4

¶23

19wp2490.odt

¶24

school was again recognized, the school has absorbed
the surplus candidates as was directed by the
Divisional Social welfare Officer. The learned counsel
submits that at present there is no vacancy in the
respondent school.

¶25

5. The learned AGP states that name of the
petitioner is not included in the list of surplus
candidates as the appointment of the petitioner was on
temporary basis.

¶26

6. We have considered the submissions.

¶27

7. It is not disputed by either of the parties that
the appointment of the petitioner was on grant-in-aid

¶28

basis that the school where the petitioner was working
stood de-recognized. The petitioner would stand
retrenched under under Rule 25A of the MEPS Rules and
if the de-recognition of the school is not on account
of lapse on the part of the employee, the employee can

¶29

be declared as surplus and absorbed accordingly. As
other teachers of the said school have been absorbed,
it can be said that the de-recognition of the school
was not on account of lapse on the part of the
employees.

¶30

3/4

¶31

19wp2490.odt

¶32

8. Considering the above, respondent No.4 shall
place the petitioner in the list of surplus candidates
and shall absorb the petitioner as per his turn and the
petitioner will be paid salary from the date of his
absorption.

¶33

9. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.

¶34

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. )

¶35

JPC

¶36

4/4

Prabhakar Baburao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhakar Baburao Pawar v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Mah and Ors. Vs Ambadas Shadeo Yedwar and Anr.

Sunita Sitaram Surwase and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sinkukumar Krishnakumar Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Maheshkumar Ramlu Akulwar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shivaji Nagorao Chopde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohammed Fahim Shaikh Abdul Hakim Vs Iqbal Khan Sattar Khan and Another