Dr. Farkhunda Aniskhan vs State Of Maha. Thru. Secty. And 4 ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 148 Bom

                        J-wp1676.07.odt                                                                                                  1/3 


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


                                                   WRIT PETITION No.1676 OF 2007



                        Dr. (Mrs.) Farkhunda Aniskhan,
                        resident of Prashant Nagar,
                        Plot No.74, Katol Road, Nagpur.                                            :      PETITIONER

                                          ...VERSUS...

                        1.    State of Maharashtra,
                               through the Secretary,
                               Higher Education Department,
                               Mantralaya, mumbai-32.

                        2.    The Director of Higher Education,
                               Maharashtra State, Central Bldg.,
                               Pune.

                        3.    The Joint Director of Higher Education,
                               Old Morris College Building,
                               Sitabuldi, Nagpur.

                        4.    H.B.T. Arts & Commerce College,
                               through its Principal, New Sudhedar
                               Layout, Dattatraya Nagar, Nagpur-440 024.

Amendment               5.    Shadab Education Society,
carried out as per             through its Secretary Administrator, 
court's order                  New Subhedar Layout,
dt.7.2.2017.                   Dattatraya Nagar, Nagpur-440 024.                                    :      RESPONDENTS


                        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
                        Shri Vaidya holding for Shri Anand Parchure Advocate for the Petitioner.
                        Shri V.A. Thakare, Asstt. Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
                        None for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
                        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-




                ::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2017                                             ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2017 00:53:57 :::
         J-wp1676.07.odt                                                                                                  2/3 



                                              CORAM  :   SMT. VASANTI   A.  NAIK   AND
                                                         V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.

                                              DATE      :   28 th
                                                                  FEBRUARY, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner had sought a direction

against the respondents to grant approval to the appointment of the

petitioner on the post of Lecturer. By amending the writ petition, the

petitioner has sought a direction against the respondent Nos.4 and 5 -

management to pay the difference of arrears of salary to the petitioner

for the period from 1.1.2006 to 30.9.2008.

Shri Vaidya, the learned counsel holding for Shri Anand

Parchure, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the

services of the petitioner are terminated, the prayer made by the

petitioner for a direction against the respondents to grant approval to the

appointment of the petitioner would not survive. It is stated that the

grievance of the petitioner would stand redressed, if this Court directs to

the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to pay the arrears of difference of salary to

the petitioner for the period from 1.1.2006 to 30.9.2008.

None appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 and 5

though served. Since an Administrator is appointed on the respondent

No.5 society, we had issued a notice to the respondent No.5 through the

Administrator and the notice is duly served. However, none appears on

J-wp1676.07.odt 3/3

behalf of the respondent No.5 despite service.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with

a direction to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to pay the arrears of difference

of salary to the petitioner from 1.1.2006 to 30.9.2008, if the same is

payable and is not yet paid, within four months. Order accordingly. No

costs.

                                                       JUDGE                                         JUDGE



okMksns