Disposed¶4

Amkush Bhausaheb Bhadbale and Ors. v. Karmvir Pratishthan Ramnagar Jalna

Bombay HC20 Mar 2025WP/2010/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad (neutral citation 2025:BHC-AUG:8444-DB), WRIT PETITION NO. 2010 OF 2003, decided March 20, 2025, per Coram Alok Aradhe, C.J. and S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J. Keywords: lecturers; salary arrears; prescribed pay scale; Statute 219; Grievance Committee jurisdiction; University Tribunal appeal dismissed; termination in 2004; liberty to agitate salary claim in Writ Petition No.7993 of 2005; writ petition disposed; Karmvir Pratishthan Ramnagar, Jalna; Ankush Bhausaheb Bhadbale.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to raise all grievances as to payment of salary and seek relief regarding arrears of salary in Writ Petition No.7993 of 2005 filed against their termination. ¶4

Amkush Bhausaheb Bhadbale and Ors. Vs Karmvir Pratishthan Ramnagar Jalna — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

wp 2010.03.odt

¶2

2025:BHC-AUG:8444-DB

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

201 WRIT PETITION NO. 2010 OF 2003

¶6

Ankush Bhausaheb Bhadbale And Others VERSUS

¶7

Karmvir Pratishthan Ramnagar, Jalna

¶8

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S.G. Thombre GP for Respondents: Mr. A.B. Girase Advocate for Respondents no.1 & 2 : Mr. N.B. Khandare Senior Counsel i/b Mr. V D Gunale

¶9

CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, C.J. AND S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. Dated : March 20, 2025

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

Petitioners claim that they were appointed as Lecturers with respondent no.2-College. According to the petitioners, they were permanent employees by virtue of the Statue 219. Although, they were appointed on respective posts and entitled for pay scale as prescribed by the Respondent no.4, they were never paid prescribed salary right from commencement of their appointment. Respondent nos.1 and 2 paid them meager amount on lumpsum basis at intervals of 4 to 6 months. In this background, petitioners made complaint to Grievance Committee of respondent no.3-University for redressal of their grievance. However, their representation has

¶12

2 wp 2010.03.odt

¶13

been rejected on the ground that it is beyond jurisdiction of the Grievance Committee. Therefore, petitioners have approached this Court seeking directions for release of their salary and benefits as prescribed by the State Government.

¶14

Mr. Khandare, learned Senior advocate appearing

¶15

for respondent nos.1 and 2 informs that services of the petitioners have been already terminated in the year 2004 and thus they are not in service.

¶16

Although, petitioners have filed appeals to University Tribunal assailing their termination, those appeals are dismissed, however, it is informed that writ petitions are filed against such orders.

¶17

In that view of the matter, We dispose off this writ

¶18

petition, with liberty in favour of the Petitioners to raise all grievances as to payment of salary in Writ Petition No.7993 of 2005 filed against their termination and seek relief regarding arrears of salary. Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶19

( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. ) ( CHIEF JUSTICE )

¶20

aaa/-

Amkush Bhausaheb Bhadbale and Ors. v. Karmvir Pratishthan Ramnagar Jalna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amkush Bhausaheb Bhadbale and Ors. v. Karmvir Pratishthan Ramnagar Jalna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vilas Neminath Kanode and Another vs the State of Maharashtra through Its District Collector and Others

Zamin Hussain Mohd.Ashfaq Vs Union of India Thro.P.M.General and Ano

Kalpana Suhas Suryavanshi and Ors. Vs Jayant Suryaji Salunkhe and Another

Tushar Yuvraj Gite and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shrikumar Radheshyam Agrawal and Another Vs the National Highway Authority of India through Its Project Director and Others

Rudranee Construction Company Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited