Santosh Kalyanrao Karanjkar vs State Of Maha & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 3452 Bom

                                                                        WP No. 6460/04
                                               1


                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
                 APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 6460 OF 2004
                                     WITH
                     CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11405 OF 2005

          Santhosh S/o Kalyanrao Karanjkar,
          Age: 28 Years, Occu: Service,
          R/o Bhagyanagar,Kallam,
          Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad.      ....Petitioner.

                  Versus

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

2.        The Education Officer (Secondary)
          Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad.

3.        Mahatma Gautam Shikshan
          Prasarak Mandal, Kallam,
          Dist. Osmanabad
          Through its Secretary
          (To be served through Headmaster,
          Jan Jagrati Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
          Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad).

4.        The Head Master,
          Jan Jagrati Madhayamik Vidyalaya,
          Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad.          ....Respondents

Mr. V.P. Golewar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mrs. V.N. Patil (Jadhav), AGP for Respondents/State.

                                   CORAM       :   T.V. NALAWADE AND
                                                   SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

                                   DATED   :       June 21, 2017.


ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

.                 The petition is filed for relief of giving direction to





                                                                 WP No. 6460/04

respondent No. 2 - Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,

Osmanabad for giving approval to the appointment of petitioner with

effect from 4.10.1995 on the post of Peon in respondent No. 4 -

School and for giving further directions to release the salary of

petitioner as per the pay scale from 4.10.1995. Heard the learned

counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. for respondent No.

1/ State. Nobody turned up for the school.

2. The record is produced by the petitioner to show that he

had applied to the school for giving him appointment on the post of

Peon on 10.9.1995 and the appointment was given to him on

25.9.1995. The record is produced to show that from 25.9.1995 till

4.10.1995 he was continuously in service, but that certificate was

issued on 20.10.2002. This posting to the petitioner was given on

the post of Peon which had fallen vacant due to promotion given to

previous Peon. The proposal was made in the year 1999 for giving

approval to the appointment of petitioner on the said post. The

petitioner himself had sent the grievance to the Education Officer

that the school was not taking steps for getting approval to his

appointment. Some queries were made by the Education Officer

which were as follows :-

(i) Whether the appointment of the present petitioner

was on sanctioned post ?

WP No. 6460/04

(ii) Whether the reservation policy was followed ?

(iii) Whether the procedure was followed for

appointment ?

(iv) Why the institution had not taken steps for getting

the approval to the appointment ?

3. No record is produced to show that compliance of

aforesaid matter was done by the employer. One letter dated

4.5.2002 of the institution is produced by the petitioner in which the

Headmaster had expressed regret for not doing anything and he had

expressed that he was not in a position to do anything.

Correspondence is produced of the Secretary of the institution

showing that the service of the petitioner was continued by the

school, but he was not allowed even to sign the muster roll.

4. On one hand, the aforesaid record can be said to be in

favour of the petitioner showing that appointment was actually given

and on the other hand, it can be said that the petitioner joined

hands with the institution for getting the approval and to help the

petitioner, such record was created and that way the liability will

come to the Government to pay the salary as the school is receiving

grants. There is no record whatsoever with the petitioner on the

aforesaid queries made by the Education Officer. Apparently, the

WP No. 6460/04

appointment was not made by following procedure prescribed. In

any case, if at all petitioner is in service and he has worked for the

school, the salary needs to be paid as per the pay scale given for

Peon. But that needs to be paid by the school and not by the

Government. If there is some dispute on factual aspect, period, that

dispute can be taken to the Education Officer on this point. But, the

basic responsibility to pay the salary as per the scale will be of the

school, if the petitioner has really worked in the school as a Peon as

per his case.

5. So, the petition is partly allowed. Respondent Nos. 3 and

4/employer are directed to pay the salary of the petitioner as per the

pay scale from 4.10.1995 and they are to pay salary as per the pay

scale regularly every month to the petitioner. If at all any dispute is

there with regard to the period for which the petitioner has worked,

it can be taken to the Education officer. The relief of giving directions

to the Education Officer for issuing approval is however refused. Civil

Application is disposed of.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

ssc/