Vanita D/O. Chandrakant Likhar vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4212 Bom

WP  4208/15                                            1                              Judgment

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                       WRIT PETITION No. 4208/2015

Vanita Chandrakant Likhar,
Aged about 37 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Jalalkheda, Tq.Narkhed,
District Nagpur.                                                                 PETITIONER

                                     .....VERSUS.....
1.    State of Maharashtra,
      through its Secretary,
      Department of Tribal Development,
      Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2.    The Scheduled Tribe
      Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
      Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3.    Zilla Parishad, Amravati,
      through its Chief Executive Officer,
      Amravati, tah. & Distt. Amravati.                                         RESPONDENTS


                       Shri G.G. Mishra, counsel for the petitioner.
     Shri I.J. Damle, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
                    Shri J.B. Kasat, counsel for the respondent no.3.


                                       CORAM :SMT.VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                      A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.                  

DATE : 7 TH JULY, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

The only prayer made by the petitioner in this writ petition is

for a direction to the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner in the

pay-scale, as is applicable to the post of Assistant Teacher and release the

arrears of salary to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Shikshan

Sevak that was earmarked for the scheduled tribes on 22.10.2001. The

WP 4208/15 2 Judgment

scrutiny committee invalidated the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner

filed a writ petition challenging the order of the scrutiny committee

bearing Writ Petition No.3309 of 2011. This Court partly allowed the

writ petition and after setting aside the order of the scrutiny committee,

remanded the matter to the scrutiny committee for a fresh decision, on

merits. The scrutiny committee has still not decided the caste claim of the

petitioner.

3. Shri Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted

that the respondent-Zilla Parishad was not justified in granting a lesser

salary to the petitioner after the petitioner attained the status of an

Assistant Teacher on 04.12.2004 merely because the caste claim of the

petitioner was pending before the scrutiny committee. It is submitted

that the Zilla Parishad would be entitled to take appropriate action

against the petitioner if his caste claim is rejected but, since the petitioner

is still in service and is discharging the duties of an Assistant Teacher with

effect from 04.12.2004, it would be necessary for the Zilla Parishad to pay

the salary that is payable to an Assistant Teacher, to the petitioner. It is

submitted that this Court had directed the respondent-Zilla Parishad to

pay the arrears of salary in the pay-scale of an Assistant Teacher to the

petitioner from the date of filing of the writ petition. It is stated that the

case of the petitioner is also supported by the Government Resolution

dated 14.10.2010. It is submitted that in the circumstances of the case, it

WP 4208/15 3 Judgment

would be necessary to direct the Zilla Parishad to pay the arrears of salary

to the petitioner for the period from 04.12.2004 till the date of filing of

the petition, i.e. 30.06.2015.

4. We find that the petitioner has successfully completed the

tenure of a shikshan sevak and is discharging the duties of an Assistant

Teacher with effect from 04.12.2004. Though the petitioner was working

as an Assistant Teacher, the petitioner was paid the salary of a shikshan

sevak even after the completion of three years of service as a shikshan

sevak, only on the ground that the caste claim of the petitioner is pending

before the scrutiny committee. When the petitioner is discharging the

duties of an Assistant Teacher, the respondent-Zilla Parishad could not

have paid the salary of a shikshan sevak to the petitioner. We had, by the

interim order dated 18.11.2015, directed the Zilla Parishad to pay the

arrears of salary to the petitioner from the date of filing of the petition in

regular pay-scale that is admissible for an Assistant Teacher. The

grievance of the petitioner would, therefore, remain only in respect of the

arrears of salary from 04.12.2004 till the date of filing of the petition, i.e.

30.06.2015. We are, however, not inclined to issue a direction to the

Zilla Parishad to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner from

04.12.2004 as the petition is filed on 30.06.2015. It is well settled that a

monetary claim, even if made for a longer period, could be granted only

for three years preceding the date of filing of the proceedings before the

WP 4208/15 4 Judgment

Court. Since the writ petition is filed on 30.06.2015, it would be

necessary to direct the Zilla Parishad to pay the difference of arrears of

salary to the petitioner from 30.06.2012 till 30.06.2015.

5. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly

allowed. The Zilla Parishad is directed to pay the arrears of difference of

salary to the petitioner for the period from 30.06.2012 till 30.06.2015

within three months. The respondent-Zilla Parishad should pay the

regular salary that is admissible for an Assistant Teacher to the petitioner

till the caste claim of the petitioner is decided. It is needless to mention

that if the caste claim of the petitioner is invalidated, the Zilla Parishad is

free to take appropriate action against the petitioner.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as

to costs.

              JUDGE                                           JUDGE

APTE