Smt.Surekha W/O Gangadhar Hingwe vs Gram Vikas Mandal,Karanja & Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 3710 Bom

                                                    1              wp774.02.odt

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


                           WRIT PETITION NO. 774 OF 2002


            Smt. Surekha Gangadhar Hingwe,
            aged about 34 years, Occ. Teacher,
            R/o. Devwadi, Post-Warwadi,
            Tah. Karanja (Ghadge), Distt. Wardha                           PETITIONER

                                   ...VERSUS...

 1.         Gram Vikas Mandal, Karanja (Ghadge),
            L.I.G. Colony, Arvi, 
            District - Wardha through its President
            Smt. L.S.Chopde,

 2.         Special District Social Welfare Officer,
            Administrative Building, Wardha.

 3.         Hansa Krida Nyas Prasarak Mandal,
            Pimpalkhuta, Tq. Barsi, Distt. Akola,
            through its President/Secretary ......                  RESPONDENTS

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri J.L.Bhoot, counsel for Petitioner.
 Shri S.M.Ukey, Addl. Govt. Pleader for Respondent no.2
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, AND
                                        Mrs. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

th DATE : 28 JUNE, 2017 .

ORAL JUDGMENT

1] This petition seeks direction to the respondents

to pay the salary to the petitioner on the post of Head

2 wp774.02.odt

Mistress from the date of appointment i.e. 01.07.1999 till the

filing of the petition on 23/24.01.2002. The appointment was

in the Ashram School in respect of which there is no dispute.

However, after going through the averments made in the

petition and the reply filed by the Special District Social

Welfare Officer, it seems that the appointment of the

petitioner was not regular appointment, but was on the

honorarium of Rs.2,500/- per month. The appointment was

restricted for the year 1999-2000 and in the year 2000-01,

the petitioner refused to accept the honorarium with

unreasonable demand. The petitioner has not produced

even the order of appointment to find out as to the nature of

the appointment or salary payable to her. According to the

petitioner, no such order of appointment was issued. The

approval to the appointment of the petitioner was also not

granted. The petitioner is out of employment since

12.01.2002.

2] In such a situation, various disputed questions of

fact are involved and it is, therefore, not possible for us to

issue mandamus to the respondents to pay the salary to the

petitioner in the scale of pay available to the post of Assistant

3 wp774.02.odt

Teacher. The petition is dismissed.

Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.

                                JUDGE                       JUDGE


 Rvjalit