Nandini Prabhakar ... vs The President,Ayurved ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3123 Bom

                                                                                                   wp.3814.00

                                                        1



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


                               WRIT PETITION NO.3814/2000

*        Ku. Nandini  D/o Prabhakar Kulkarni 
         (Smt.Mona Mohan Saraf)  
         Aged about 35  years 
         Resident of Solapur Maharashtra.                                     ....PETITIONER.

                                                  VERSUS

1)       The  President 
         Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Pusad
         Tq.Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal

2)       The Principal 
         Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Pusad 
         Tq.Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal. 

3)       Amravati University 
         Through its Registrar. 

4)        The State of Maharashtra 
          Through its Secretary.
          Education Department 
          Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.                                     ....RESPONDENTS
                                                                                                  . 
...................................................................................................................
                                       None for the petitioner 
  Shri V.P. Maldhure,  Assistant  Government Pleader for respondent no.4 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                 CORAM :  R.K. DESHPANDE &
                                                             MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : 13 th June, 2017

wp.3814.00

This petition claims direction to the respondents to pay the

difference of arrears of salary in the scale of Rs. 2000-4000 with effect

from 09.09.1992 with interest @ 12 per cent per annum.

2. None appears for the petitioner. We have gone through the

petition. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer initially on contract

basis, on a fixed salary of Rs.3,500/-, per month. Subsequently, she

was regularly appointed by an order dated 09.09.1992 in the scale of Rs.

2200-4000. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the

University on 24.05.1993.

3. Grievance of the petitioner is that she was not paid salary

in the scale of Rs.2200-4000. We have gone through the return filed by

the Management. It is the stand taken that in the order itself, the scale

was prescribed of Rs. 2200-4000 and, accordingly, the petitioner was

paid the salary in the time-scale. It is also the statement made that the

petitioner was paid the difference in D.A. amounting to Rs.44,059/- and

the petitioner executed the receipt in token of having received the

difference in salary. The petitioner has disputed these f acts.

wp.3814.00

4. In view of the aforesaid dispute on factual aspects, it is not

possible for us to adjudicate in exercise of our writ jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as to whether the petitioner has

actually received the difference of salary, as was admissible. The Writ

Petition is dismissed.

                         JUDGE                        JUDGE
sahare