Swati D/O Pandurang Raut And 2 Ors vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 684 Bom

                                                                                        wp3192.09.odt

                                                      1

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

                                 WRIT PETITION NO.3192/2009

     PETITIONERS:               1.  Ku. Swati d/o Pandurang Raut, 
                                     Aged about 29 yrs., Occ. Service, 
                                     R/o Laxmi Nagar, Pusad, Tah. Pusad, 
                                     Dist. Yavatmal. 

                                2.  Smt. Sairabi wd/o Majeed Khan, 
                                     Aged about 44 yrs., Occ. Service, 
                                     R/o Gulmohar Park, Nagpur Road, Pusad, 
                                     Tah. Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal. 

                                3.  Shri Aejaz Ahmad s/o Shaukat Miya, 
                                     aged about 35 years, Occ. Service, 
                                     R/o Vasant Nagar, Pusad, Tah. Pusad, 
                                     Dist. Yavatmal. 

                                                   ...VERSUS...

     RESPONDENTS :    1.  The State of Maharashtra, through 
                           its Secretary, Municipal Council 
                           Administration Department, Mantralaya, 
                           Mumbai. 

                                2.  The Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal. 

                                3.  Municipal Council, Pusad, Through its 
                                     its Chief Officer, Pusad, Tah. Pusad, 
                                     Dist. Yavatmal. 

                                4.  The Regional Director of Municipal 
                                     Administration, Amravati Division, Amravati. 

                                      (Amended as per Hon'ble Court's order 
                                       dated 9.10.2009)
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for petitioners 
              Ms T.H. Udeshi, AGP for respondent nos.1, 2 and 4
              Shri Papinwar, Adv. h/f Shri A.M. Ghare, Adv. for respondent no.3
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017                                    ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2017 00:31:32 :::
                                                                                wp3192.09.odt

                                                2

                                                    CORAM  :  SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK, AND
                                                                      V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE : 10.03.2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction against the

respondents to grant approval to their services. The petitioners seek a

direction against the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioners in

the prescribed scale.

The learned Counsel for the respondent no.3 has opposed

the prayers made in the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioners are

not working with the respondent no.3. It is stated that the salary for the

period during which the petitioners worked was released in their favour.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners however disputes

the statements made on behalf of the respondent no.3. It is stated that the

petitioner no.2 is still working with the respondent no.3. However, the

said position is disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondent no.3.

The dispute involved in this petition cannot be decided, in

exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Since the disputed questions of facts that

are involved in this writ petition cannot be decided, in exercise of the writ

jurisdiction, the writ petition is liable to be disposed of. The petitioners

would be free to take up appropriate proceedings for seeking the relief, if

so advised.

wp3192.09.odt

Hence, we dispose of the writ petition with no order as to

costs. The points raised in the petition are however kept open. Rule stands

discharged.

                     JUDGE                                                             JUDGE



     Wadkar