wp.3814.00
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.3814/2000
* Ku. Nandini D/o Prabhakar Kulkarni
(Smt.Mona Mohan Saraf)
Aged about 35 years
Resident of Solapur Maharashtra. ....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1) The President
Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Pusad
Tq.Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal
2) The Principal
Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Pusad
Tq.Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal.
3) Amravati University
Through its Registrar.
4) The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary.
Education Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. ....RESPONDENTS
.
...................................................................................................................
None for the petitioner
Shri V.P. Maldhure, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 13 th June, 2017 ::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2017 00:15:41 ::: wp.3814.00 2 This petition claims direction to the respondents to pay the difference of arrears of salary in the scale of Rs. 2000-4000 with effect from 09.09.1992 with interest @ 12 per cent per annum.
2. None appears for the petitioner. We have gone through the petition. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer initially on contract basis, on a fixed salary of Rs.3,500/-, per month. Subsequently, she was regularly appointed by an order dated 09.09.1992 in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the University on 24.05.1993.
3. Grievance of the petitioner is that she was not paid salary in the scale of Rs.2200-4000. We have gone through the return filed by the Management. It is the stand taken that in the order itself, the scale was prescribed of Rs. 2200-4000 and, accordingly, the petitioner was paid the salary in the time-scale. It is also the statement made that the petitioner was paid the difference in D.A. amounting to Rs.44,059/- and the petitioner executed the receipt in token of having received the difference in salary. The petitioner has disputed these f acts. ::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2017 00:15:41 :::
wp.3814.00 3
4. In view of the aforesaid dispute on factual aspects, it is not possible for us to adjudicate in exercise of our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as to whether the petitioner has actually received the difference of salary, as was admissible. The Writ Petition is dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2017 00:15:41 :::