1 Judg. wp 1184.02.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.1184 of 2002
Tularam Domaji Ramteke,
Aged 62 years, Occ.-Retired,
Holey Lay-out, Hingna Road, P.O. Jaitala,
Nagpur-440016. .... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1] State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary, Department of P.W.D.,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2] Chief Engineer, Nagpur Region (P.W.D.),
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3] Project Director and Chief Executive Officer,
and Chairman of Dist. Rural Development Agency
(D.R.D.A.), Zilla Parishad, Bhandara (M.S.). .... Respondents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for petitioner.
Mrs. M.P. Munshi, Counsel for respondent no.3.
Mrs. Geeta Tiwari, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
nos. 1 and 2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram : R. K. Deshpande &
Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.
Dated : 02 nd August, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R. K. Deshpande, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2017 01:47:45 ::: 2 Judg. wp 1184.02.odt None appears for the petitioner. Mrs. Munshi, the learned Counsel appears for respondent no.3 and Mrs. Geeta Tiwari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appears for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
2] The present writ petition claims the direction to the respondents to pay fees and honorarium amounting to Rs. 2,55,300/- due to him for the work done by him during 19-07-1984 to 04-06-1987 i.e. for a period of 2 years, 10 months and 15 days while working under Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Zilla Parishad, Bhandara.
3] We have gone through the directions to find out the purpose for such claim. We are informed that the petitioner claims the deputation allowance and also the charges or the salary for the work done by him. We have gone through the paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 10 of the petition which make reference to Government Resolutions dated 22-06-1984 and 01-08-1984. We have gone through the said resolutions and we do not find that the petitioner is entitled for deputation allowance.
4] On the contrary, our attention is invited by the learned
Counsel for the Zilla Parishad to the communication dated
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2017 01:47:45 :::
3 Judg. wp 1184.02.odt
28-08-1995 issued by the Rural Development Department of the
State informing that the deputation allowance is not admissible to the Government employees working on deputation with Zilla Parishad though holding temporary additional charge. 5] In view of above, we do not find any substance in this petition. The writ petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Deshmukh
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2017 01:47:45 :::