Dnyaneshwar Netram Raut vs The Education Officer, Zp And 5 ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9677 Bom

                                                                     1                                           WP.1374.06

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

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 1374 OF 2006.


     Dnyaneshwar s/o Netram Raut,
     aged 31 years, Occupation : Nil,
     R/o At and Post Itan, Tahsil
     Lakhandur, Distt. Bhandara.    .....                                                PETITIONER.
                                       
               ....Versus....

     1] The Education Officer (Secondary),
           Zilla Parishad, Bhandara,

     2] The Deputy Director of Education,
        Nagpur Region, Nagpur,

     3] Bhartiya Shikshan Sanstha,
        through its President,
        Lakhandur, Tahsil Lakhandur,
        Dist.  Bhandara,

     4] Shivaji Vidyalaya, Itan,
        through its Head Master,
        Itan, Tahsil Lakhandur,
        District Bhandara,

     5] Shri H.B. Raut, Junior Clerk,
         Shivaji Vidyalaya, Itan,
         Tahsil Lakhandur,
         District Bhandara,

     6] State of Maharashtra, through
        its Secretary, Education Deptt,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.         ......                                              RESPONDENTS.

     None for petitioner.
     Mr. I.J. Damle, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.
     1, 2 & 6. 
     Mr. N.M. Jibhkate, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 & 4.



::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2017                                              ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2017 01:29:45 :::
                                                                      2                                           WP.1374.06

     CORAM :  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : DECEMBER 15, 2017.

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



     1]               Nobody   has   appeared   for   petitioner   yesterday   though

     matter was passed  over.    There was no appearance for  petitioner

even on 11.9.2012. Thereafter, when matter was listed on 5.1.2015

petitioner sought adjournment.

2] Mr. I.J. Damle, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 6, is relying upon reply affidavit to submit

that because of ban on recruitment then in force, prayer of petitioner

for grant of compassionate employment could not be considered. He

further adds that it is basically for management to provide such

employment.

3] Mr. Jibhkate, learned Counsel appears for respondent nos.

3 & 4. He is seeking time to make a definite statement. However, he

informs that as per instructions last communicated to him orally,

petitioner is already employed on compassionate basis and is today

in employment.

                                                                      3                                           WP.1374.06

     4]               In this situation, we are not inclined to adjourn the matter

     further.     Matter   has   been   called   out   on   several   occasions   by   this

Court and has been adjourned as is apparent from order-sheet.

5] If petitioner is already in employment, we direct

respondents not to discontinue his services merely because this Writ

Petition is disposed of.

6] As we find that grievance of petitioner is already

redressed, with liberty to him to approach again if any cause of action

arises and with direction to respondents not to disturb his

employment only because present Writ Petition is disposed of, we

partly allow Writ Petition and dispose it of. No costs.

                            JUDGE.                                                                 JUDGE.
     J.