Disposed

Tukaram Vyankatrao Dhumale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC3 Sept 2018WP/5451/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, directed the respondents to sanction the pay-scale of 1400-2600 to the petitioner, a Medical Social Worker appointed in 1999, based on clarification from the Commissioner (Handicapped).

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent to sanction the pay-scale of 1400-2600 to the petitioner as per the Government Resolution dated 20.11.1995 within four months.

Tukaram Vyankatrao Dhumale Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

wp5451.14

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5451 OF 2014

¶5

TUKARAM VYANKATRAO DHUMALE
VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Mr.M.V. Salunke, Advocate h/f Mr.V.P. Salunke,
Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. N.T. Bhagat, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr.P.R. Tandale, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶8

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :03.09.2018

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

Mr.Salunke, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that, the petitioner is appointed as a Medical
Social Worker with respondent No.4 on 15.06.1999 on an
approved post. The appointment of the petitioner is also
approved by the office of the respondent. As per
Government Resolution dated 20.11.1995 the petitioner is
entitled for the pay-scale 1400-2600. The petitioner is
also granted approval. However, the appointment order
and the approval order states that the petitioner is
entitled for honorarium of Rs.200/- per month. Since
2001 the request is made for granting pay-scale to the
petitioner, but to no avail. The post is approved as the
full time post. The petitioner be given pay-scale of
1400-2600.

¶11

2.Mr. Tandale, learned counsel for respondent No.
3 submits that the petitioner is appointed on honorarium

¶12

( 2 ) wp5451.14

¶13

of Rs.200/- per month with an understanding that the
post is honorarium post. The office of respondent No.3
sought guidance from the office of respondent No.2. The
office of respondent No.2 informed respondent No.3 under
letter dated 25.04.2014 that the post of Medical Social
Worker is sanctioned on the basis of honorarium of Rs.
200/-. According to the Government Resolution dated
18.08.2004, the said post is not sanctioned / approved
post.

¶14

3.Learned AGP submits that the approval has been
granted to the petitioner on honorarium of Rs.200/-.

¶15

4.Mr. Salunke, learned counsel submits that the
Medical Social Worker of other handicap school is paid
in pay-scale of 1400-2600.

¶16

5.Considering the anomalous position, we had
asked the learned AGP to take instructions from the
Commissioner (Handicapped) about the applicable pay-
scale to the petitioner. The learned AGP has placed
before us the communication received to him from the
Commissioner handicapped. The same is taken on record
and marked "X" for identification. The said
communication clearly states that the Medical Social
Officer would be entitled for the pay-scale of 1400-2600
if appointed prior to the Government Resolution dated
18.08.2004. The petitioner is appointed in the year
1999. For 50 students the post of Medical Social Welfare
is available as a full time post and if the students are
less than 50, the same is a part time post. The

¶17

petitioner claims that the students in the school of
respondent No.4 are 60.

¶18

6.Considering the clarification given by the
Commissioner, Handicapped the petitioner would be
entitled for the pay-scale of 1400-2600. The respondent
shall as such sanction the pay-scale to the petitioner
as 1400-2600. The same be done expeditiously, preferably
within four months.

¶19

7. Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶20

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.]

¶21

ssp/Sept. 18/ wp5451.14

Tukaram Vyankatrao Dhumale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tukaram Vyankatrao Dhumale 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanraj Digambar Choudhari Vs Jai Tulja Bhavani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors.

Ratansing Motising Salok Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Maharashtra Public Service Commission through Deputy Secretary Vs Karuna Mahadeo Dongardive and Ors.

Ashok Yadavrao Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prabhakar Kachru @ Bhivsen Hiwale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kanchan Sunil More U/G Sunil Babulal More Vs Director of Technical Education, Mah. State, Mumbai and Ors.