Comprehensive Rural Development ... vs State Of Maha & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 3544 Bom

                                        1        WP 2270 of 2004

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         Writ Petition No. 2270 of 2004

     *       Comprehensive Rural Development
             Project Karanji, Taluka Pathardi,
             District Nagar,
             Through H.M. Shri. Bhalchandra
             s/o Bhaskar Kasote,
             Age 52 years,
             Occupation: Head Master,
             Gramin Vikas Prakalpa Andhshala,
             Karanji, Taluka Pathardi,
             District Ahmednagar.              ..             Petitioner.

                      Versus

     1)      The State of Maharashtra,
             Through Secretary,
             Social Welfare Department
             Mantralaya, Mumbai,

     2)      The Commissioner,
             Directorate of Handicap Welfare,
             State of Maharashtra, Pune.

     3)      District Social Welfare Officer,
             Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.                .. Respondents.

                                ----
     Shri. V.D. Salunke, Advocate, for petitioner.

     Smt. P.V. Diggikar, Assistant Government Pleader, for
     respondent Nos.1 and 2.
                                  ----

                                Coram:      T.V. NALAWADE &
                                            SANGITRAO S PATIL, JJ.

Date: 22 June 2017.

                                         2       WP 2270 of 2004

     ORAL JUDGMENT (T.V. NALAWADE, J.):



     1)               The petition is filed for giving direction to the

respondent-Government to make payment of grant-in-aid

to the employees in respect of salary of the employees and

other things for the period 23-11-2000 to 2-4-2002 which

include arrears of salary, increments, non salary grants

etc. both the sides are heard.

2) The petitioner started residential school for

boys and girls in village Karanji, Tahsil Pathardi in the

year 1985 and application was moved for registration and

recognition. It is contended that the recognition was

granted in the year 1990 and grant also was given with

effect from 6-6-1991. It is contended that in the year 2000

sanction and recognition were renewed for the academic

year 2000-2001 after inspection. It is contended that after

that without giving hearing to the petitioner order dated

23-11-2000 came to be passed and both registration and

recognition of the petitioner school came to be cancelled

with effect from October 2000. It is contended that due to

such order, the payments of salary grant and other grant

3 WP 2270 of 2004

came to be stopped. It is contended that this order was

challenged by filing proceeding before the Secretary of

the Department of the State Government but the appeal

was rejected by the Minister. It is contended that writ

petition was filed in this Court bearing No.802/2002 and

by allowing the writ petition this Court directed present

respondent No.2, the Commissioner to renew the

registration in favour of the petitioner and the aforesaid

orders made by the respondents were set aside. It is

contended that after the decision of the writ petition, the

petitioner approached the Director of Social Welfare for

renewal of the recognition and also for grant-in-aid for

the period during which there was no registration and

recognition. It is contended that in spite of making several

representations these grants are not released and so the

petitioner was required to file the present proceeding.

3) The learned Assistant Government Pleader

drew attention of this Court to the Special School Code

prepared for schools for handicapped children and also

Government Resolution dated 27-1-2004. In this record as

per the policy adopted by the Government it is made clear

4 WP 2270 of 2004

that if for institutions like the petitioner there was no

recognition or registration for particular period and after

that they got the recognition and registration, then the

institution will be entitled to get grant-in-aid only in

respect of the period for which there was registration and

recognition. For the remaining period, if there was no

recognition and registration, the grants are not to be

given. This record shows that protection is given to the

service of the employees though the grant-in-aid is not to

be given in respect of this period. This Court has seen the

order made in the writ petition by this Court and it also

does not show that the direction was given by this Court

to see that in respect of the period for which there was no

recognition and registration grant-in-aid is given. In view

of these circumstances this Court holds that no relief can

be granted in the matter. The petition stands dismissed.

Rule stands discharged.

             Sd/-                                Sd/-
     (SANGITRAO S PATIL, J.)             (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)



     rsl