Pandurang S/O Sitaram Khandare vs State Of Mah., Through The ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 23 Bom

                                                 1/4                      2402WP658.15-Judgment




                                                                                              
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                                    
                           WRIT PETITION NO.  658   OF    2015

     PETITIONER :-                        Pandurang   s/o   Sitaram   Khandare,   Aged 
                                          about 46 years, Occ. Service, r/o Shelubazar, 




                                                                   
                                          Tq. Mangrulpir, Distt. Washim. 

                                             ...VERSUS... 




                                                   
     RESPONDENTS :-                  1) State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, 
                                        Education   Department,   Mantralaya, 
                               ig       Mumbai-32.  

                                     2) Director   of   Education   (Secondary),   Central 
                                        Building, Pune.
                             
                                     3) Deputy   Director   of   Education,   Amravati 
                                        Region, Amravati. 

                                     4) Education   Officer   (Secondary),   Zilla 
      


                                        Parishad, Washim, Tq. and Distt. Washim.  
   



     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Mr. C.A.Joshi, counsel for the petitioner.
                Mr.Nikhil Joshi, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondents.
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





                                               CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
                                                       A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.

DATED : 24.02.2016

O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is

heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2/4 2402WP658.15-Judgment

2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the

respondent No.1, dated 11/07/2014 refusing to grant the status of Full

Time Librarian to the petitioner with effect from 28/06/1994. The

petitioner seeks a declaration that he is entitled to the status of a Full

Time Librarian with effect from 28/06/1994 to 31/03/2006, the date

from which he was granted the status of the Full Time Librarian.

3.

The petitioner was appointed as a Part Time Librarian on

16/01/1993. According to the petitioner, after the acceptance of the

report of Chiplunkar Committee by the State Government, it was

decided that the Part Time Librarians working in the schools with more

than 1000 students would be entitled to the status of Full Time

Librarian. The petitioner had claimed the status of Full Time Librarian

with effect from 28/06/1994, however, the respondents granted the

status of Full Time Librarian to the petitioner with effect from

01/04/2006. The petitioner has impugned the said order and has

sought a declaration that he is entitled to a status of the Full Time

Librarian with effect from 28/06/1994.

4. Shri Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states

that the issue involved in this case stands answered in favour of the

petitioner by the judgment dated 20/01/2016 in Writ Petition Nos.1272

3/4 2402WP658.15-Judgment

and 1278 of 2015. It is stated that this Court had notionally granted

the status of Full Time Librarian to the petitioner in the said writ

petition with effect from 01/07/1994 and had directed that the

petitioner in the said case should get the salary as a Full Time Librarian

with effect from 01/02/2016 as the judgment was rendered on

20/01/2016. The learned counsel seeks a similar order on parity.

5. Shri Nikhil Joshi, the learned Assistant Government

Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4, does not

dispute the factual statements made on behalf of the petitioner. The

learned Assistant Government Pleader also does not dispute the position

of law as laid down in the judgment dated 20/01/2016 in Writ Petition

Nos.1272 and 1278 of 2015. It is admitted that the facts involved in the

decided case and the present case are similar.

6. Hence, for the reasons recorded in the judgment dated

20/01/2016 in Writ Petition Nos.1272 and 1278 of 2015, we allow the

writ petition. We hereby direct that the petitioner should be granted the

status of Full Time Librarian with effect from 01/07/1994 and the

salary of a Full Time Librarian should be paid to the petitioner only with

effect from 01/03/2016. It is made clear that the petitioner would not

be entitled to the arrears of salary, as the salary of the petitioner would

be notionally fixed. Since the increments payable to the petitioner

4/4 2402WP658.15-Judgment

would be only notionally fixed, the petitioner would not be entitled to

any arrears and the notional increments would be considered only for

the purposes of pay fixation, time bound promotion and the pensionary

benefits, as admissible, in accordance with rules.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order

as to costs.

                                   JUDGE                                 JUDGE 
                            
     KHUNTE