Shivraj Kondiram Dase & Anr vs The State Of Mah & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 9344 Bom

                                                              W.P.No.5796/2006
                                      (( 1 ))


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                        WRIT PETITION NO.5796 OF 2006


 1)       Shivraj s/o Kondiram Dase,
          Age 35 years, Occu. Service,
          R/o C/o Basweshwar School,
          Kumtha (Bk.), Tq. Ardhapur,
          District Nanded.

 2)       Arvind s/o Rohidas Gavhane,
          Age 32 years, Occupation &
          R/o as above.                         ...      PETITIONERS

          VERSUS

 1)       The State of Maharashtra
          through the Secretary,
          Education Department,
          Government of Maharashtra,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32

 2)       The Director of Education,
          Secondary and Higher
          Secondary, Pune,
          Maharashtra State, Pune - 1

 3)       The Education Officer (Secondary)
          Zilla Parishad, Nanded.

 4)       Head Master,
          Basweshwar High School
          Kumtha (Bk.),
          Tq. Ardhapur, District Nanded

 5)       Shri Basweshwar Shikshan
          Prasarak Mandal, Kumtha (Bk.),
          Tq. Ardhapur, District Nanded         ...      RESPONDENTS

                               .....
 Shri V.D. Salunke, Advocate for petitioner
 Mrs. V.S. Choudhary, A.G.P. for State

                                       .....



::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2017                    ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2017 01:38:58 :::
                                                                    W.P.No.5796/2006
                                        (( 2 ))



                                 CORAM:         P.B. VARALE AND
                                                SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

                                 DATED :        6th DECEMBER, 2017.


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


 1.               Heard        Mr.   Salunke,     learned     counsel        for     the

 petitioners.          The petitioners before us namely Mr. Shivraj

Kondiram Dase and Arvind Rohidas Gavhane, by the present

petition, seek directions to grant approval for the post of Peon on

grant-in-aid basis in respondent No.4 School.

2. The facts which are not in dispute, as submitted by

Mr. Salunke, learned counsel for the petitioners are that, the

petitioner No.1 Shivraj Dase was appointed on 1.11.1997 and his

appointment came to be approved after completing the probation

period. Petitioner No.2 Arvind Rohidas Gavhane was appointed

on 1.1.2000. The petitioners were appointed in the Primary

School i.e. 5th to 7th Standard. The appointment orders of these

petitioners respectively dated 1.8.2002 and 6.8.2002 are placed

on record at Exhibit D. Mr. Salunke, the learned counsel, by

inviting our attention to a document placed on record at Page 45,

namely the staffing pattern and the position at which these

petitioners are placed, submitted that, the approval to these

posts was not granted treating them as the persons attached to

non-grant educational institutes. Mr. Salunke then submitted

W.P.No.5796/2006 (( 3 ))

that, though on principle there was no denial from the office of

the Education Officer (Secondary), but for the ground that the

Education Officer (Secondary), was not possessing the powers to

grant approval to the post. The representation made to the

Education Officer was turned down by order dated 22.3.2004.

3. Mr. Salunke, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, by inviting our attention to Exhibit I i.e. judgment

and order of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition

No.2234/2004, submitted that, in an identical fact situation, this

Court dealt with the issue and allowed the petition. He then

submitted that, the view of this Court in the case of Maroti

Atmaram Gawandgaonkar & ors. Vs. The State of

Maharashtra & ors. (Writ petition No.2234/2004), decided

on 27.4.2006, is reiterated and reaffirmed in a bunch of

petitions, decided on 6.5.2014. The denial of the claim of the

petitioners, relying on the Government Resolution dated

26.3.2002 was unsustainable. Mr. Salunke invited our attention

to paragraph 6 of the judgment in the bunch of petitions, namely

Writ Petition No.3700/2012 with other connected writ petitions.

The observations of this Court read thus :

6. This Court, in almost similar fact situation wherein grant-in-aid was sanctioned to 5th to 7th classes of the concerned institution / school, after considering the Government Resolution dated 26th March, 2002 held

W.P.No.5796/2006 (( 4 ))

that in the facts of that case, the schools started receiving grant-in-aid after said resolution came into force and since the date of sanctioning grant-in-aid, the approval has been granted to the teaching staff and, therefore, there was no reason for not granting approval to non-teaching staff i.e. two posts of peons and allowed the petition and directed the State Government to grant approval to the services of the petitioners therein, who were working as peons. The relevant para no.5 from the judgment in case of Maroti s/o Atmaram Gawandgaonkar and others v/s The State of Maharashtra and ors. In Writ Petition No.2234 of 2004 decided on 27.4.2006 reads, thus:

" 5. The facts of the present case clearly reveal that the appointment of the petitioners were approved by the Education Officer. The petitioners came to be appointed on the two posts of Peons which came into existence on account of the approved staffing pattern because of permission granted to the school to start standards 5th, 6th and 7th. Standards 5th, 6th and 7th were on no grant basis and gradually in a phased manner the standards 5th, 6th and 7th have been held admissible to grants and since over more than 10 years. Moreover, the proposals submitted by the Management for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner on grant-in-aid basis were pending before the Education Officer for a long time. Also, by the communication at Annexure R-3 dated 18th July, 2005, the Education Officer, Z.P. Nanded, himself, recommended to the Deputy Director of

W.P.No.5796/2006 (( 5 ))

Education, Latur, that two posts of peons be sanctioned on grant-in-aid basis in Jagruti Vidyalaya for the 5th to 7th Standards. If that be the case, there is no justifiable reason on law, at least none has been put forth before us, for not holding the posts held by the petitioners as admissible to grants. It is not disputed before us that standards 5th, 6th and 7th were sanctioned on no grant basis and the appointment of the petitioners was approved on no grant basis. It is also not disputed before us that standards 5th, 6th and 7th have now been held to be admissible to grants in a phased manner. In the light of these undisputed facts, according to us, the petition deserves to succeed. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (B), (C) and (D). In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs."

4. Learned A.G.P. invited our attention to a

communication received by her. The said communication is a

letter addressed to the respondent No.4. By way of the said

communication, the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla

Parishad, Nanded informs that, in view of the order passed by

the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, dated 29.2.2008, and in

view of certain other communications, the approval is granted to

the appointment of Mr. Shivraj Kondiram Dase, his continuity in

service from 1.11.1999 is also admitted. It is then stated in the

communication that the classes of Standards 5th to 7th are

W.P.No.5796/2006 (( 6 ))

brought on 100% grant stagewise. Then the communication

refers to the decision of the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal. It

states that, the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal

directed the respondents to grant all the benefits to the

appellants within a stipulated period of 30 days including the

reinstatement of these petitioners. The Education Officer then

states that, a decision is accordingly taken to allow 100% salary

bills in case of Mr. Shivraj Kondiram Dase. Similar

communication is in respect of other petitioner Mr. Arvind

Rohidas Gavhane. Copies of these communications are taken on

record and marked "X" for identification.

5. In view of the communications, the grievance of the

petitioners in respect of payment of salary on 100% basis,

working as an employee in grant-in-aid institution, is redressed.

Insofar as granting of approval is concerned, the respondent

authorities to take necessary decision in view of the judgment of

this Court referred above, as expeditiously as possible. The

petition is disposed of. Rule is accordingly made absolute in

above terms.

          ( SUNIL K. KOTWAL )                         ( P.B. VARALE )
               JUDGE                                      JUDGE

 fmp/