Allowed

Ferozkhan Haderkha Pathan v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC29 Nov 2018WP/10005/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed three connected writ petitions filed by teachers seeking non-payment of salary from 2011 to 2013. The court directed the Education Officer to decide the pending representations on merits within twelve weeks of the order.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Education Officer to decide the pending representations within twelve weeks from the date of this order.

Ferozkhan Haderkha Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

WP.10010-17.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

921 WRIT PETITION NO. 10010 OF 2017

¶5

SHAIKH AFSAR PASHA ABDUL WAHAB VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

WITH WP/10005/2017

¶8

FEROZKHAN HADERKHAN PATHAN

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶11

WITH WP/11579/2017

¶12

DAIMI MINHAJ BEGUM AFZAL

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶15

Mr. G.R.Syed, Advocate for Petitioners Mrs. A.V.Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondents-State Mr. D.S.Mali, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 & 5 Mr. S.B.Munde h/f Mr. V.D.Gunale, Adv. for Respondent No.6 Mr. P.H.Patil h/f Mr. P.B.Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.7

¶16

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

¶17

DATE : 29.11.2018

¶18

PER COURT :-

¶19

Heard Mr. G.R.Syed, the learned counsel for the petitioners. A common grievance is raised in these petitions. The petitioners submit that they were appointed in Respondent No.6 - School namely Ismail Urdu Primary School being run by Respondent No.7 - Institute namely Phoenix Foundation Sanstha, in the year 1993 and they were

¶20

2 WP.10010-17.odt

¶21

discharging their duty as a teacher for a considerable long period from October 2011, the monthly salary is not paid to the petitioners. The petitioners along with the other teachers similarly situated submitted representations to the Education Officers (Primary) as well to Respondent No.6Head Master. Respondent No.6 also in turn submitted the request before the Education authorities.

¶22

The learned counsel invited our attention to the copy of such representations placed on record from year 2011 to year 2014. The last representation placed on record is of 30.05.2014. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 by filing affidavit-inreply through Respondent No.6 support the case of the petitioners. Along with the affidavit-in-reply certain documents placed on record to submit that the institute as well as the Head Master took the necessary steps such as submitting the pay bills and forwarding the representations to the authorities.

¶23

One of the communications placed on record along with the affidavit-in-reply show that the Superintendent of Pay and Provident Fund Unit refers to a submission of bill and states that its a belated bill against the salary for October 2011 to 2013 and necessary approval be granted.

¶24

3 WP.10010-17.odt

¶25

Along with affidavit-in-reply, copy of the representation made to the Secretary of the Education Department is also placed on record and the same is at Exh.R-4 collectively dated 20.01.2014. On the very date i.e. on 20.01.2014, the Desk Officer forwards a communication to the Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur informing him that the Secretary, Education Department received the representation dated 20.01.2014 and the Deputy Director of Education to process the matter and to take necessary steps. Thus what emerges from the perusal of material is the petitioners as well as Respondent Nos.6 and 7 have approached Respondent No.5 - Education Officer and to the other authorities namely Respondent No.1 - Secretary and Respondent No.3 - Deputy Director of Education, Latur region and the representations are still pending for decision by the Education Officer (Primary) Latur i.e. Respondent No.5.

¶26

In our opinion, without going into the other details and without referring to the other material placed on record, the petition can be disposed of by giving directions to Respondent No.5 to decide the representations within a stipulated period. This direction would meet the ends of

¶27

4 WP.10010-17.odt

¶28

justice and would cause no prejudice to the respondents.

¶29

Accordingly, we allowed the petitions in terms of prayer

¶30

clause 'C' and further direct the Education Officer - Respondent No.5 to decide the representations received by him either by the petitioners or through Respondent No.6, as expeditiously as possible and not later than twelve weeks from the date of order of this Court. Respondent No.3 – the Deputy Director of Education, Latur Region, Latur also intimate the Education Officer (Primary) to take necessary steps within the stipulated period as directed by this Court and the Deputy Director of Education to look into the matter personally for early decision by the Education Officer in compliance of this order of this Court.

¶31

With these directions, the petitions are disposed of. Needless to state that the Education Officer to decide these representations on the merits of the representations and if needed by giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.

¶32

(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

¶33

vmk/-

Ferozkhan Haderkha Pathan v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ferozkhan Haderkha Pathan 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

Manda Nandkishor Akolkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Yogesh Namdeo Kasal Vs Ashim Khurana Chairman Staff Selection Commission New Delhi and Others

Rajendra Ramnath Tidake Vs Ashim Khurana Chairman Staff Selection Commission New Delhi and Others

Rashtramata Jijau Sevabhavi Sanstha through Its President S B Bhamre and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Narsing Nagnath Pandge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Afsar Pasha Abdul Wahab Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others