Bombay High Court
Rajiya Begum Mohd Ibrahim vs State Of Mah & Ors on 13 October, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
WP 4958/2005
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4958/2005
Rajiya Begum Mohd.Ibrahim
aged 36 years, Occ.Nil,
R/o Gumand Roshan Khan Mohalla
Parbhani.
...Petitioner..
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
(through the Secretary Social
Welfare Department Mantralaya,
Mumbai)
2] Zilla Parishad
(through its Chief Executive Officer)
Parbhani.
3]The Commissioner and Competent Authority
under the persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights
and Full Participation) Act,1995,
Maharashtra State,Pune.
4] The District Social Welfare
Officer,(Group A)
Zilla Parishad ,
Parbhani.
5] Azad Education Society and welfare Society
(through its Secretary Alisha Khan)
Naseem Manzil, Iqbal Nagar,
Parbhani.
6] The Head Master,
Rashtriya Residential Orthopaedically
Handicapped Vidyalalya,
Iqbal Nagar,Parbhani.
...Respondents...
::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2016 00:58:39 :::
WP 4958/2005
- 2 -
.....
Shri K.M. Nagarkar, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri V.S. Badak, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 3.
Respondent no.4 served.
Shri U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondent nos.5 & 6.
.....
CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
K.L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE: 13.10.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) :
1]
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that
this Court in Writ Petition No.5420/2003 under its judgment
and order dated 11.12.2003 had directed the Police
authorities; the Collector, Parbhani, so also District
Social Welfare Officer to consider the grievances made by
the petitioner on its own merits. The Police authorities
had registered the case against the office bearers of the
institution, a charge-sheet was also filed. However,
according to his instructions, the accused are acquitted.
The learned counsel submits that no proper enquiry was
conducted as directed by this Court and a cryptic order
came to be passed by the Collector, Parbhani. The
management maintains two Muster rolls, that is the part of
their mis-deed. No order of termination is issued to the
WP 4958/2005
- 3 -
petitioner, however, the petitioner is not allowed to work
after 2003. The learned counsel submits that even till the
date, the petitioner has worked, the petitioner is not paid
any salary. No enquiry in that regard was made by the
Collector, Parbhani. According to the learned counsel,
large scale illegalities are committed by the respondents.
Even juniors to the petitioner have been retained. Only
because the petitioner has filed the writ petition, the
respondents have harassed the petitioner.
2] Learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 & 6
submits that no illegalities have been committed by the
respondents. The petitioner was given appointment order
for a period of two years, however, she never joined the
post as an Assistant Teacher in Rajiv Gandhi High School.
The petitioner wanted appointment to be made in Rashtriya
Asthivyang Vidyalaya, Parbhani. However, there was no
vacancy in the said school. As the petitioner did not join
the post of Assistant Teacher even for a single day, no
question arises of paying any salary to the petitioner.
According to the learned counsel, the Muster roll annexed
to the petition is prepared by the petitioner.
3] We have considered the submissions canvassed by
WP 4958/2005
- 4 -
the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
4] Earlier also, the petitioner had filed Writ
Petition No.5420/2003 making similar grievances. The
Court, while disposing of the said writ petition under its
order dated 11.12.2003, observed that it is not possible
for it to accept all contentions that are raised by the
petitioner in this petition. However, it would be
appropriate to direct the Collector, Parbhani, the
Superintendent of Police, Parbhani and the District Social
Welfare Officer, Parbhani, to enquire into the applications
filed by the petitioner indicating the deeds and mis-deeds
of office bearers of the respondent nos.5 and 6 and they
were directed to consider the application on its own
merits. The Superintendent of Police has enquired into the
matter and ther4eafter a charge-sheet is filed against the
office bearers of the respondent nos.5 and 6. It
transpires that subsequently there is acquittal in their
favour as has been stated by the petitioner.
5] Be that as it may, the Collector, Parbhani, has
also observed that the appointment of the present
petitioner was never approved. The liability to pay salary
was not of the State as the appointment was not approved
WP 4958/2005
- 5 -
and on going through the Muster roll from 28.9.2004, the
name of the petitioner does not appear.
6] In fact, the grievance of the petitioner was till
the date the petitioner has worked, according to the
petitioner, i.e. from 1995 to 2002-03, no salary is paid,
nothing appears to have been considered by Collector in
that regard. The salary is not paid to the petitioner.
According to the respondent nos.5 & 6, the petitioner did
not work even for a single day and as such is not entitled
for salary. Whereas, according to the petitioner, the
petitioner has discharged her duties regularly till the
year 2002-03. The Muster till the year 2003 ought to have
been considered.
7] As the other grievances are already taken care of
by the Police authorities and criminal case was also filed,
in the present matter, we can only issue direction with
regard to considering the record about the payment / non-
payment of salary to the petitioner from 1995 till the
period the petitioner had worked, according to the
petitioner, so also the case of the respondent nos.5 and 6
that the petitioner having not worked. The same will have
to be considered by the respondent no.4 after going through
WP 4958/2005
- 6 -
the record that may be produced by the parties.
8] In the result, we pass the following order.
O R D E R
The petitioner may approach the respondent
no.4 and file a comprehensive application with
regard to her claim of salary alongwith the
documents relied upon by the petitioner. The
respondent no.4, after hearing the petitioner
and the respondent nos.5 & 6 and after
considering the record that may be filed by
the respective parties, shall take decision
with regard to the claim of the petitioner for
payment of salary for the period from 1995 to
2002-03 on its own merits on the basis of the
record produced by the parties, expeditiously
and preferably within a period of six months
from the date of receipt of application from
the petitioner. Rule is accordingly disposed
of. No costs.
(K.L. WADANE, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)
ndk/c13101617.doc
