Disposed

Babasaheb Babanrao Borude v. the Union of India and Others

Bombay HC12 Sept 2018WP/13420/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a writ petition involving a teacher in a special school whose salary was withheld due to a pending government proposal for a new academic unit. The Court directed the Education Officer to forward the proposal to the Director of Education within four weeks for an expedited final decision.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No. 5 to forward the proposal to Director of Education within four weeks for decision within six weeks.

Babasaheb Babanrao Borude Vs the Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

901wp13420o17

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 13420 OF 2017

¶5

BABASAHEB BABANRAO BORUDE

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Shri P.P.Dawalkar h/f Ms.Nyayadhish Sayalee V.

¶9

Advocate for Respondent 1 : Mrs. Ansingkar (Jape) Dipali S. Addl.GP for Respondents 2 to 5 : Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar. Advocate for Respondents 6 and 7 : Shri Rahul A. Tambe.

¶10

CORAM: PRASANNA B. VARALE AND

¶11

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.

¶12

DATE :- 12^th September, 2018

¶13

Per Court :-

¶14

1 The Petitioner is before this Court with a limited grievance. His submission is that the Petitioner is one of those employees working in the special school/Respondent No.7 being run by Respondent No.6/ Institute and in view of the Government policies, Respondent No.6/ Institute submitted it's proposal for an unit catering academic needs of specially challenged children. It is submitted that there are as many as seven such students admitted in this school under the unit and Respondent No.6/ Institute started the unit in the year 2012 and more precisely from 01.08.2012.

¶15

2 901wp13420o17

¶16

2 It is further submitted that Respondent No.6/ Institute is having all infrastructural facilities available with it so as to cater the needs of the students along with teachers having requisite qualifications to teach specially challenged children. All necessary documents are submitted to the authorities along with the proposal to show the infrastructural facilities as well as the availability of teaching and non-teaching staff. It is submitted that the proposal is submitted in the year 2012 to the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar and various representations are submitted by Respondent No.6/ Institute reminding the authorities for deciding the proposal as early as possible.

¶17

3 Our attention was invited to such representations forwarded to the authorities as well as to the representatives of people. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has specifically invited our attention to one of such representations submitted to the Secretary, School Education Department, State of Maharashtra dated 01.03.2016.

¶18

4 The learned counsel for the Petitioner then submits that as

¶19

the proposal is pending, the teaching staff appointed by Respondent No.6 is deprived of the basic minimum needs like salary and other emoluments to which they are entitled to.

¶20

5 Considering the limited grievance voiced by the Petitioner and considering the material placed on record, we are of the opinion that this Writ Petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission by issuing

¶21

3 901wp13420o17

¶22

necessary directions to the Respondent Authorities.

¶23

6 Accordingly, we direct Respondent No.5/ Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar shall forward the proposal dated 01.09.2012 to the Director of Education, Pune within a period of FOUR WEEKS from today and thereafter, the said Director of Education shall take appropriate decision on the said proposal as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within SIX WEEKS from the date of receipt of the proposal from the Education Officer.

¶24

7 Needless to state, the Director of Education is at liberty to decide the proposal on it's own merits and considering the prevailing policies of the Government in that respect.

¶25

8 This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the above

¶26

directions.

¶27

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) ( PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. )

¶28

kps

Babasaheb Babanrao Borude v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babasaheb Babanrao Borude v. the Union of India 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

Manish Dharsibhai Parmar Vs the Additional Commissioner of Income TAX-RANGE-2, Aurangabad

Ahmed Mohib Syed Vs the Union of India and Others

Dr Sudarshan Babarao Thakare and Others Vs Jawahar Medical Foundation Dhule through Its Chairman and Others

Jagdish Chintaman Khodake Vs Head Master Shrimati R G Mali Primaryvidyamandir Dhule and Others

Gajanan Mastya Vyawasai Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. through Its President Dattu Nivrutti Khandagale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gajanan Mastya Vyawasai Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. through Its President Dattu Nivrutti Khandagale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others