Bombay High Court
Ganesh Ankush Pawar And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 24 October, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
{1}
wp223216.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2232 OF 2016
1 Shri Ganesh s/o Ankush Pawar
age 29 years, occ. Service
2 Shri Shrikant s/o Bharat Gawali
age 23 years, occ. Service
Both r/o Vasantrao Naik Secondary
Ashram School, Pimplagaon(Amba)
Tq. & Dist. Latur Petitioner
Versus
1
The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Social Welfare Department
Maharashtra State,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
2 The Director,
V.J.N.T., OBC and SBC Department,
Maharashtra State,
Pune
3 The Divisional Deputy Commissioner,
Social Welfare Department,
Latur, Division Latur.
4 The Assistant Commissioner,
Social Welfare Department,
Latur.
5 Vasantrao Naik Secondary Ashram School
Pimpalgaon(Amba) Tq. & Dist. Latur
Through its Headmaster Respondents
Mr. V.B. Jadhav, advocate for petitioners.
Mr. K.N. Lokhande, A.G.P. for Respondents 1 to 4.
Mr. S.R. Shirsat, advocate for respondent no. 5.
::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2016 00:33:19 :::
{2}
wp223216.odt
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
K.K.SONAWANE, JJ.
DATE : 24th October, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J.)
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.
2 Petitioners are praying for issuance of directions to the
Respondents to release salary payable to them since July 2015 till
this date.
Petitioners are working in Respondent No.5-School
since 2010. Appointments of petitioners, made in the year 2010,
have been approved by Respondent No.3-Divisional Deputy
Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, Latur Division, Latur.
Initially, the Social Welfare Department accorded approval to the
appointment of petitioners provisionally for the academic years
2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. By issuing an
order on 29.03.2015, Respondent No.3-Divisional Deputy
Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, Latur Division, Latur,
accorded permanent approval to the appointment of petitioners
from 01.06.2014 onwards and has also granted them continuity in
service. Respondent-State, however, has taken a decision to
absorb surplus teaching and non teaching staff and not to grant
approval to new appointments unless surplus teaching and non
teaching staff is absorbed. According to the Respondents, strength
of surplus non teaching staff in the Latur division was more than
22 and as such Respondent No.1 - Director of VJNT, OBC and
SBC, Maharashtra State, Pune, on 01.10.2015, issued a letter
{3}
wp223216.odt
directing Respondent No.2 to withdraw the approval of employees
who are appointed after 16.10.2012. It has also been directed to
stop salary of employees whose appointments are contrary to
Government Resolution dated 16.10.2012. It is further stated that
on scrutiny of the relevant record, it is revealed that the
Management, while appointing petitioners, has not followed the
procedure laid down in Government Resolution dated 16.10.2012.
It is also contended that no prior permission was obtained before
publishing advertisement inviting applications for filling up the
vacancies. It is stated that inquiry is contemplated in the matter
and after receipt of report in respect of proposed inquiry,
appropriate decision as regards approval granted to the petitioners
would be taken.
4 It must be noted that as on today, petitioners are
rendering their services in Respondent No.5-school and that their
appointments have been approved by the competent authority. It
is also worth to be taken note of that till this date, approval to the
appointment of petitioners has not been withdrawn. In this view of
the matter, since petitioners are in employment and their services
have been approved by the competent authority. Until any adverse
decision is taken in observance of the procedure prescribed,
Respondents are not justified in stopping salary payable to the
petitioners. It would be open for the Respondents to adopt
appropriate procedure and take suitable decision taking note of
alleged irregularity caused in according approval to the
appointment of petitioners. It is also expected of the Respondents
to extend opportunity of hearing to the petitioners since the
adverse decision is likely to affect their right in respect of
{4}
wp223216.odt
continuance in service. Respondents are under an obligation to
pay salary to the petitioners as long as they are in service in
Respondent No.5-school, which is receiving grant-in-aid from the
State Government.
5 Writ Petition is, thus, allowed. Respondents are
directed to release salary payable to the petitioners from the month
of July 2015 and continue to pay monthly salary to them subject
to the decision, which Respondents may take in furtherance of
report of the proposed inquiry. The arrears of salary shall be paid
to the petitioners within a period of one month from today.
6 Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no
order as to costs.
K.K.SONAWANE R.M.BORDE
JUDGE JUDGE
adb/wp223216
