Disposed

Devidas Dhanaji Thakare, v. Nashik Zilla Parishad, and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Aug 2016WP/3985/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of two writ petitions concerning the petitioner's employment as a teacher in Zilla Parishad schools. Directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's claim for promotion within three months and to resolve unpaid salary claims within one month. The challenge to the cancellation of the absorption order was kept open.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's claim for promotion and extend benefits within three months, and to release unpaid salary and arrears within one month.

Devidas Dhanaji Thakare, Vs Nashik Zilla… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp 10569.12.doc

¶2

Urmila Ingale

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 10569 OF 2012 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3985 OF 2011

¶6

Shri Devidas Dhanaji Thakare .. Petitioner Vs.

¶7

The Nashik Zilla Parishad, Nashik and ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar, for the Petitioner. Ms.Anamika Malhotra, for Respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr.Vikas Mali, AGP for Respondent No.3 – State.

¶9

CORAM : SHANTANU.S.KEMKAR &

¶10

M.S.KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 24^th AUGUST, 2016

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

. Heard parties through their Counsel.

¶13

The petitioner claims to be appointed as the

¶14

Assistant Teacher in primary school of Zilla Parishad, Nashik in the year 1989. In the year 1992, he was sent on deputation in

¶15

secondary school of Zilla Parishad, Nashik. Thereafter, vide

¶16

order dated 19/04/2006, petitioner's case was recommended and order was passed by the Zilla Parishad, Nashik absorbing

¶17

1/4

¶18

wp 10569.12.doc

¶19

the petitioner in the secondary school and treated his service by counting the period rendered by him in the primary school. Since the petitioner was neither given the benefits of order of absorption dated 19/04/2006 nor he was granted the promotion for which, according to him, he was entitled, he filed Writ Petition No. 3985 of 2011. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, vide order dated 15/09/2012, the order dated 19/04/2006 was cancelled by the respondents. In the circumstances, petitioner had to file Writ Petition No. 10569 of 2012 challenging the order dated 15/09/2012 by which absorption order dated 19/04/2006 was cancelled. In the meantime, on 04/07/2014, the petitioner was appointed as a graduate teacher in the secondary school.

¶20

During the course of arguments, the only grievance pressed at this stage by the petitioner is that Zilla Parishad, Nashik inspite of the fact the petitioner is entitled for being considered for promotion from the post of primary teacher to secondary school teacher has not been considered the case of

¶21

2/4

¶22

wp 10569.12.doc

¶23

the petitioner for promotion. Learned Counsel for the Zilla Parishad, Nashik though has opposed the Petition, but has stated that so far as the petitioner's grievance in regard to the consideration of his case for promotion, the same will be considered and appropriate decision as per the petitioner's entitlement shall be taken.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid statement made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Zilla Parishad, Nashik, we are inclined to dispose of these Petitions by directing the respondent - Zilla Parishad, Nashik to consider the petitioner's claim for promotion in accordance with the rules and in case, the petitioner is found to be entitled for promotion, consequential order and the benefits be extended in his favour as expeditiously as possible but not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶25

As regards petitioner's contention that he has not been paid salary since 04/07/2014, learned Counsel for the

¶26

3/4

¶27

wp 10569.12.doc

¶28

respondent - Zilla Parishad, Nashik submits that in this regard also appropriate decision will be taken and the unpaid salary including all arrears will be released in favour of the petitioner within one month.

¶29

As regards, the petitioner's challenge to the cancellation of absorption order on the ground that the same has been passed after 6 years of the passing of the order of absorption, that too without giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, we keep this point open for decision in case the petitioner is required to file a fresh petition.

¶30

With the aforesaid observations and directions, both these Petitions are disposed of.

¶31

( M.S.KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU.S.KEMKAR, J.)

¶32

4/4

Devidas Dhanaji Thakare, v. Nashik Zilla Parishad, and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devidas Dhanaji Thakare, v. Nashik Zilla Parishad, 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

Smt. Manisha Vasant Kamathe Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice Dept and Ors.

Mit Harsad Patel Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept. and Ors.

Shri Rajendra Shankreppa Bodhale Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Shivaji Narayan Shingade and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Balasaheb Shivaji Aware and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Education Dept and Ors.

Vishal Baburao Takmoge Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Forest and Revenue Dept and Ors.