Bombay High Court
Datta Chhaganrao Shinde & 8 Ors vs State Of Mah.Thr.Higher Edun & 4 ... on 13 June, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1
wp4160.00.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.4160 of 2000
1. Datta s/o Chhaganrao Shinde.
2. Smt. Rekha Harshvardhan Wankhede.
3. Gajanan s/o Sadashiv Lambe.
4. Kum. Sheela Somnath Kapse.
5. Baliram Kaniram Rathod.
6. Sebi A. Joseph.
7. Mahadeo Atmaram Lichade.
8. Tarachand Kisan Lande.
9. Kailash Bajirao Bhambore.
All residents of c/o Datta s/o Chhaganrao
Shinde, Gautam Nagar Ward,
Post Pawni, Tahsil Pawni,
District Bhandara. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Ministry of Higher Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Joint Director of Higher Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2017 00:43:33 :::
2
wp4160.00.odt
3. Nagpur University,
through its Registrar,
Maharaj Bagh Road, Nagpur.
4. Praversen Shikshan Sanstha,
through its Secretary
Dr. L.D. Balkhande,
B-83/8, Patrakar Sah Niwas,
Amraoti Road, Nagpur.
5. P.S.S. Arts & Commerce College,
through its Principal, Pawni,
District Bhandara. ... Respondents
Shri Rohit Vaidya, Advocate, holding for Shri Anand Parchure,
Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri V.P. Maldhure, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande & Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.
th
Dated : 13 June, 2017
Oral Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) :
1. This petition seeks a declaration that the petitioners are
entitled to claim arrears of salary with effect from January 1996,
as per the 5th Pay Commission. It also claims a direction to the
respondents to immediately release the arrears of salary in the
old scale after May 2000 till date and to continue to pay the same
wp4160.00.odt
regularly before 10th of every month.
2. On 9-3-2001, this Court passed an order as under :
" Learned counsel for the respondent-management
states that the grants have not been released by the Joint
Director of Education and, therefore, payment of salaries
is not done. It is stated that the Institution is in no way
concerned with disbursement of the salary as the same is
being paid through the Nagpur University at the request of
the petitioner. It is submitted that only salary bills are
being drawn by the respondent Institution. It is stated
that bills have already been drawn but the Joint Director
of Education has not released the grant and, therefore, the
salaries are not paid. Shri Kothari learned Assistant
Government Pleader who represents Joint Director of
Education states that a sum of Rs.27,28,041/- has to be
recovered from the respondent Institution as the
respondent Institution has mis-appropriated the salary
grants of the teachers. We fail to understand why the
respondent Joint Director of Education is sleeping over the
matter. If it was found that the respondent Institution has
mis-appropriated salary grants of the teachers they should
have initiated criminal and civil proceedings against the
wp4160.00.odt
management and also should have taken steps to
withdraw the institution from the existing management,
the management, having failed to discharge their duties in
running the institution in accordance with law. Learned
Assistant Govt. Pleader states that he will seek instructions
from the Joint Director of Education as to why such steps
were not taken.
We, therefore, direct the Joint Director of
Education to release salary grants of the teachers for the
period May 2000 to February, 2001 and also continue to
disburse the said grants so that teachers can at lease
receive their salaries through Nagpur University on or
before 31st March, 2001.
We make it clear that if the Joint Director of
Education, does not initiate steps against the management
as observed by us, the authority would be personally liable
for inaction and non compliance of direction of this Court.
Steno copy of the order duly authenticated by the
Court Sheristedar be furnished to the parties to act upon."
3. Thereafter on 9-4-2001, this Court passed an order
wp4160.00.odt
noting that the direction issued by this Court has been complied
with by issuing cheques up to February 2001 towards payment of
salary of the petitioners to the University for disbursement. The
matter has now come up for final hearing.
4. Shri Vaidya, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, submits that for want of instructions, he is unable to
proceed with the matter. There is no dispute that the order
dated 9-3-2001 passed by this Court has been complied with and
there is no complaint before this Court about any sort of
deficiency in complying with the order by the respondents. This
Court has also directed the respondents to continue to disburse
the salary grants of the teachers, and it is informed by the
learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the process of making payment as
per the 5th Pay Commission was also initiated in 2001 itself. In
the absence of any complaint, we feel that the grievance of the
petitioners stands satisfied by virtue of the interim order passed
by this Court.
wp4160.00.odt
5. In view of above, the petition stands disposed of as
infructuous. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Lanjewar
