Disposed

Moreshwar Kewalram Badwaik and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Rural Development Department, Mumbai and Another

Bombay HC11 Apr 2022WP/229/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition seeking salary arrears by accepting that dismissal pending a parallel challenge regarding other employees is unnecessary. Court directed petitioners to file affidavits undertaking to adjust amounts if future litigation determines they are not entitled.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to submit affidavits permitting recovery of amount if found not entitled; petition disposed of without keeping pending.

Moreshwar Kewalram Badwaik and Others Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

wp229.2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.229/2022

¶6

Moreshwar Kewalram Badwaik and others

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Versus -

¶9

The State of Maharashtra and another ... Respondents

¶10

Mr. P.S. Kshirsagar, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶11

Ms. Shamasi Haider, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.1. Ms. M.P. Munshi, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶12

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ. DATE : 11 APRIL 2022

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

The Petitioners have sought following relief:“i) Direct the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gondia to pay the salary as per the subject teacher pay scale i.e.

¶15

wp229.2022

¶16

¶17

38600-122800/- which is made applicable to the petitioners by order dated 18/08/2021 Annexure-7 but not paid actual in monthly salary, as the subject teacher since 27/05/2016 and are entitled as per the Government Circular dated 13/10/2016 Annexure-6 as per their qualifications.”

¶18

The learned Counsel for Zilla Parishad states that amount as sought for by the Petitioners has not been paid because there is a challenge to their entitlement by another set of teachers in Writ Petition No.3952/2021. The learned Counsel for Zilla Parishad states that there are around 1030 posts of subject teachers out of which one third will be entitled to higher pay scale sought by the Petitioners. The learned Counsel for Zilla Parishad states that since number of employees is large and since there is a challenge to the Petitioners entitlement by another set of teachers, out of precaution, the amount is not being released though the Petitioners are appointed on the said pay scale and are working.

¶19

As regards the apprehension of the Zilla Parishad is concerned, the same can be taken care of if the Petitioners give an undertaking giving permission to the Zilla Parishad to recover the amount if it is found that the Petitioners were not entitled to it in the challenge raised by other set of teachers in Writ Petition No.3952/2022. The undertaking which should be on affidavit

¶20

3 wp229.2022

¶21

should also permit the Zilla Parishad to adjust the recovery in future pay.

¶22

The learned Counsel for Zilla Parishad states as and when such individual affidavits are received, the amount claimed by the Petitioners will be released subject to the outcome of Writ Petition No.3952/2022.

¶23

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that Petitioners are agreeable to this course of action and would submit the undertakings on affidavit to the Respondent-Zilla Parishad. The affidavit should be sworn before the Court officer and not before Notary.

¶24

In light of this position, it is not necessary to keep writ petition pending, the same is accordingly disposed of as above.

¶25

(ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

¶26

Tambaskar.

¶27

Signed By:NILESH VILASRAO TAMBASKAR Private Secretary

¶28

Signing Date:18.04.2022 10:51

Moreshwar Kewalram Badwaik and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Rural Development Department, Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moreshwar Kewalram Badwaik and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Rural Development Department, Mumbai and Another

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

Dinesh S/O Shriramsingh Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra, Ministry of Shipping, Road, Transport and Highways, New Delhi and Others

Abhimanyu G. Surkar (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Pravin S/O Abhimanyu Surkar Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Secty., Gen. Admn Dept. Mumbai and 4 Otrs

Shivshakti Shaikshanik Sanstha Thr. Secty., Nagpur Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Secty., Mumbai and 5 Otrs

Karan Agency, Thr. Proprietor, Ashok Ramrao Bijwar, Yavatmal Vs State of Maha. Thr. Secy, the Agri., Animal Hus., Dairy Devpt, Fisheries Dept. Mumbai and Ors.

Dr. Mrs. Vijaya Sunil Sangawar (Before Marriage Vijaya Shankarrao Shriramwar) Vs the University Grants Commission (Ugc) New Delhi, Thr. Its Secretary and Others

Dr. Amol S/O Abhiram Deore and Ors. Vs the State of Mah Thr Its Secretary and 6 Ors.