Gajanan Hiraman Nagekar And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 34 Bom

       wp4025.15                                                                     1
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               NAGPUR BENCH




                                                                             
                          WRIT PETITION NO.  4025  OF  2015




                                                     
      1. Gajanan Hiraman Nagekar
         aged 36 years, occupation -
         Service, Full Time Librarian,




                                                    
         Prakash Krishi Vidyalaya,
         Pardi, Nagpur.

      2. Adarsha Dyan Prakash Shikshan




                                           
         Sanstha, Gandhibag, Nagpur
         through its President 
         Dr. Rajendra Prakashe.
                             
      3. Prakash Krishi Vidyalaya, Pardi,
         Nagpur, through its Headmaster.               ...   PETITIONERS
                            
                                   Versus

      1. State of Maharashtra,
      


         through its Secretary, 
         Department of Education,
   



         Mantralaya, Mumbai.

      2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
         Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.                       ...   RESPONDENTS





      Shri P.N. Shende, Advocate for the petitioner.
      Shri J.Y. Ghurde, AGP for the respondents.
                         .....





                                        CORAM :    B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                                   V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

FEBRUARY 24, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

The matter was heard on last date and was adjourned

after noticing the fact that the post of Full Time Librarian has been

sanctioned in the school of Petitioner No. 3 - from the year 1996-

97 and developments in the year 2008-09 were being pressed into

service to deny him Full Time approval for earlier period or to

thrust liability of paying salary for that period upon the

management.

2. Today, we have heard Shri Shende, learned counsel for

the petitioners and Shri Ghurde, learned AGP for the respondents

further.

3. Petitioner No. 1 has been promoted as Full Time

Librarian in petitioner No. 3 - School vide order dated 07.12.2001

on an existing vacancy. That approval was to be considered and

vide order dated 21.04.2010, the conclusion reached is, the

Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, has not sanctioned the

promotion and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to Full Time

Scale.

4. By a letter dated 28.11.2013, approval as Full Time

Librarian has been given to petitioner No. 1 from 07.12.2001

onwards, however, the wages as Full Time Librarian are to be paid

by the department from 25.11.2013 and for the earlier period, the

liability is cast upon petitioner No. 2 - management.

5. The facts are admitted. The learned AGP points out

that in other two Schools, Full Time Librarian were already

approved and in the year 2008-09 and 2009-10, the strength of

students in those Schools have dropped below 1000.

6. Though the Schools are of petitioner No. 2 -

management, one is located at Namakganj while the other one is

Girls School, which is located at Gandhibag, Nagpur. Petitioner

No. 1 has been promoted as Full Time Librarian in totally different

School i.e. in the School at Pardi, Nagpur.

7. The position prevailing on 07.12.2001 ought to have

been looked into while deciding the case of petitioner No. 1 for

grant of approval. The subsequent events looked into are totally

irrelevant. The decision to grant approval from 07.12.2001 is

already reached and accordingly salary also should have been

released from said date.

8. Accordingly, we modify the order dated 28.11.2013

and direct the respondents to release the salary of petitioner No. 1

as Full Time Librarian from 07.12.2001.

9. We find that the petitioner has been unnecessarily

forced to litigate. Hence, we impose the cost of Rs.3,000/- upon

the respondents. The respondents are free to recover the same

from the officer found guilty in the matter.

10. Rule is made absolute in above terms and writ petition

is disposed of accordingly.

                                          
               JUDGE
                              ig                                           JUDGE

                                                  ******
                            
      *GS.