1
wp1745.01.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.1745 of 2001
Miss Snehalata Narayanrao Deshmukh,
Aged about 35 years,
Occupation - Service,
R/o C/o Shri Raju Salve's House,
At & P.O. Samudrapur (Jam),
District Wardha. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The President,
Gramin Vikas Sanstha,
(Shikshan Maharshi Shri Krishnarao
Zoting Patil) Arts & Commerce College,
Samudrapur,
District - Wardha.
2. The Principal,
(Shikshan Maharshi Shri Krishnarao
Zoting Patil) Arts & Commerce College,
Samudrapur,
District - Wardha.
3. The Joint Director,
Higher Education (Grants),
Near Old Morris College Building,
Sitabuldi, Nagpur.
4. The Deputy Registrar (Special Cell),
Nagpur University,
Nagpur. ... Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2017 00:42:27 :::
2
wp1745.01.odt
Shri A.S. Thotange, holding for Shri U.J. Deshpande, Advocates for
Petitioner.
Shri V.K. Paliwal, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri B.M. Lonare, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent
No.3.
Ms Tajwar Khan, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande & Manish Pitale, JJ.
th Date : 29 September, 2017 Oral Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) :
1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks an adjournment in the matter on the ground that the petitioner wanted to engage a Senior Advocate.
2. On 8-9-2017, we heard the matter and passed an order as under :
" The complaint is that, with effect from 01.07.1997, the petitioner is not being paid salary, although for earlier period from 15.12.1995 to 30.06.1997 she was regularly paid the salary on the post of Physical Education Teacher.::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2017 00:42:27 ::: 3
wp1745.01.odt Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in spite of the order dated 04.02.2003, the salary is not being paid and the petitioner is still working on the post. Shri Paliwal, the learned counsel appearing for the Management submits that the petitioner has left the job and she is not in the employment.
In view of the aforesaid position, the petitioner to file an affidavit as to whether she is working on the post till today and whether regular salary is being paid to her. The respondent-Management should also file an affidavit on both these aspects. The Joint Director, Higher Education should also file an affidavit as to why the salary of the petitioner has not been released if the respondent College is being run on grant-in-aid basis and the appointment of the petitioner is made in accordance with law.
Put up this matter on 29.09.2017.
If the petitioner or the respondents fail to file affidavit in this Court on or before the next date, they will have to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) to the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Nagpur."::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2017 00:42:27 ::: 4
wp1745.01.odt
3. The matter is part-heard and it is, therefore, not possible for us to grant an adjournment for engaging a Senior Advocate. We feel that this is a device adopted by the petitioner to prolong the matter and the prayer for adjournment is not bona fide.
We, therefore, reject the same.
4. In response to our order dated 8-9-2017, reproduced above, the respondents have filed an affidavit, the petitioner has also filed an affidavit, and we have gone through the same.
5. The petitioner was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher in the respondent No.2-College on 15-12-1995 and she was terminated from service on 13-9-1997. Thereafter, there is no order of her fresh appointment or of continuation in service. It is the stand of the petitioner that thereafter she is continuously working on the post till today, and in support of her contention she has placed on record certain photographs of the functions conducted in ::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2017 00:42:28 ::: 5 wp1745.01.odt the College. According to the petitioner, her appointment was in the Arts faculty.
6. The stand of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the College authorities, is that the petitioner was terminated from service with effect from 13-9-1997 and thereafter she is no longer in service. They have stated that the appointment of the petitioner was in the Commerce faculty on no-grant basis and the reference is made to the biometric machine (thumb machine) for marking the attendance of the employees, installed in the College, and it is urged that the petitioner is not working on the post. It is also the stand of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the Commerce faculty was closed down. The stand of the respondent No.3-Joint Director, Higher Education (Grants), is that the post was not admissible for grants.
7. There is a serious dispute about the continuation of the petitioner in service beyond 13-9-1997. It is, therefore, not possible for this Court to enter into the disputed questions of fact. Except producing on record the photographs in respect of certain functions, ::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2017 00:42:28 ::: 6 wp1745.01.odt which even failed to establish the identity of the petitioner, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has been working continuously after 13-9-1997 till this date.
8. There is no substance in the petition. The same is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.
(Manish Pitale, J.) (R.K. Deshpande, J.) Nandurkar, PA ::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2017 00:42:28 :::