Satish Anandrao Sonawane vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 2969 Bom

                                       1
                                                                     WP/579/2011


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

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 579 OF 2011

 Satish Anandrao Sonawane
 Age : 38 years, Occu: Service,
 A/P-Malanjan, Tq - Sakri,
 Dist. Dhule.                                   ...      PETITIONER

          VERSUS

 1.       The State of Maharashtra,
          Through Principal Secretary,
          Department of Education,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

 2.       The President
          Sayjabai Adivashi Vikas Mandal
          Pimpalgaon (Devlipada),
          Tal-Sakri, Dist. Dhule.

 3.       The Head Master
          Sayjabai Adivashi Secondary School,
          Sayjabai Adivashi Secondary School,
          Pimpalgaon (Devlipada),
          Tal-Sakri, Dist. Dhule.

 4.       The Education Officer (Secondary)
          Zilla Parishad Dhule,
          Dist-Dhule.

 5.       The Deputy Director of Education,
          Nashik Division,
          Revenue Office Building Nashik,
          Nashik.                           ...          RESPONDENTS

                                 .....
 Shri. P.R.Patil, Advocate for petitioner
 Mrs. M.A.Deshpande, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1, 4 & 5
 Shri. V.D.Sapkal, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3
                                 .....
                         CORAM:        ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
                                       SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

DATE: 8th June, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Shri. Anoop V. Mohta, J.) :-

WP/579/2011

Called out from final hearing board.

1. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has

placed on record compilation of documents including submission

before the School Tribunal wherein apart from other issues, it is

mentioned that the petitioner has been paid salary from

26.11.2009 upto 30.04.2012 to the extent of RS.1,61,899/-. This

is sufficient to dispose of present writ petition. Main prayer of

the petitioner itself made on 24.09.2010, was for the payment of

salary from the date of reinstatement i.e. 26.11.2009 in the

school in question. The statement is also made that the issue to

the extent of termination is pending with the School Tribunal.

2. Therefore, at this stage we are inclined to dispose of

present writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to move

appropriate application if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the

non-receipt of the full payment / salary, if any. It is also made

clear that we are not dealing with any other aspects, which are

pending before the learned School Tribunal.

3. The petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to make

representation, if any, within four weeks.

4. Rule is discharged accordingly. Other points are kept open.

          (SUNIL K. KOTWAL)                    (ANOOP V. MOHTA)
              JUDGE                                JUDGE

 vmk