Tularam Domaji Ramteke Nagpur vs State Of Mah. Mumbai & 2 Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 5452 Bom

                                                     1                               Judg. wp 1184.02.odt 

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

                                          Writ Petition No.1184  of 2002

              Tularam Domaji Ramteke,
              Aged 62 years, Occ.-Retired,
              Holey Lay-out, Hingna Road, P.O. Jaitala, 
              Nagpur-440016.                                                             .... Petitioner.

                                                          -Versus-

              1]       State of Maharashtra,
                       through the Secretary, Department of P.W.D., 
                       Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

              2]       Chief Engineer, Nagpur Region (P.W.D.),
                       Civil Lines, Nagpur.

              3]      Project Director and Chief Executive Officer,
                      and Chairman of Dist. Rural Development Agency 
                      (D.R.D.A.), Zilla Parishad, Bhandara (M.S.). .... Respondents.
              -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              None for petitioner.
              Mrs. M.P. Munshi, Counsel for respondent no.3.
              Mrs. Geeta Tiwari, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent 
              nos. 1 and 2.
              -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Coram : R. K. Deshpande & 
                             Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.

Dated : 02 nd August, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R. K. Deshpande, J.)

2 Judg. wp 1184.02.odt

None appears for the petitioner. Mrs. Munshi, the learned

Counsel appears for respondent no.3 and Mrs. Geeta Tiwari, the

learned Assistant Government Pleader appears for respondent

nos. 1 and 2.

2] The present writ petition claims the direction to the

respondents to pay fees and honorarium amounting to Rs. 2,55,300/-

due to him for the work done by him during 19-07-1984 to

04-06-1987 i.e. for a period of 2 years, 10 months and 15 days while

working under Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency,

Zilla Parishad, Bhandara.

3] We have gone through the directions to find out the purpose

for such claim. We are informed that the petitioner claims the

deputation allowance and also the charges or the salary for the work

done by him. We have gone through the paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 10 of

the petition which make reference to Government Resolutions dated

22-06-1984 and 01-08-1984. We have gone through the said

resolutions and we do not find that the petitioner is entitled for

deputation allowance.

              4]       On   the   contrary,   our   attention   is   invited   by   the   learned 

              Counsel   for     the   Zilla   Parishad   to   the   communication   dated 





                                                      3                               Judg. wp 1184.02.odt 

                        28-08-1995   issued   by   the     Rural   Development   Department   of   the 

State informing that the deputation allowance is not admissible to

the Government employees working on deputation with Zilla

Parishad though holding temporary additional charge.

5] In view of above, we do not find any substance in this

petition. The writ petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged.

No order as to costs.

                                                 JUDGE                                             JUDGE




                            Deshmukh