Bombay High Court
Rekha Pundlik Nage vs Akola Municipal Corporation ... on 21 March, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
2103WP4574.13-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4574 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- Rekha Pundlik Nage, Aged 30 years, Occ:
Service R/o C/o Keshav Namdeorao
Gawande, Sidhivinayak Mangal Karyalaya,
Near Sitalamatamandir, Ranpise Nagar,
Akola.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. Akola Municipal Corporation, Through its
Commissioner, Havint its office at Akola,
District : Akola.
2. The Education Officer (Primary), Akola
Municipal Corporation, Akola.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.S.P.Palshikar, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Amol Deshpande, counsel for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 21.03.2017
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of
the Akola Municipal Corporation, Akola dated 07/08/2013 rejecting the
claim of the petitioner for salary payable to an assistant teacher on the
ground that the petitioner was entitled to the salary in the said scale
after she completes three years of effective service on the post of
shikshan sevak.
2103WP4574.13-Judgment 2/4
2. The petitioner was appointed as a shikshan sevak by the
respondent-corporation on 04/02/2010. The petitioner joined the
services on 26/02/2010. The respondent-corporation terminated the
services of the petitioner on 01/04/2010. The petitioner filed an appeal
before the grievance committee, that was allowed by the grievance
committee on 16/09/2011. In pursuance of the said decision, the
petitioner was reinstated in service on 08/11/2011. On completion of
three years from 26/02/2010, the petitioner applied for the salary in
the pay scale of an assistant teacher but that was denied by the
impugned communication dated 07/08/2013.
3. Shri Palshikar, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the petitioner was entitled to the salary of an assistant
teacher on completion of three years of service from 06/02/2010. It is
stated that though the petitioner was out of service from 01/04/2010
till 08/11/2011, the petitioner should have been considered to have
been serving the corporation during the said period, as the grievance
committee had allowed the appeal of the petitioner and had directed
her reinstatement with continuity of service. It is submitted that the
petitioner would be entitled to the salary of the assistant teacher with
effect from 26/02/2013.
2103WP4574.13-Judgment 3/4
4. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the corporation,
has supported the order of the Corporation. It is stated that it is clear
from the policy in the government resolution dated 13/10/2000 that a
shikshan sevak would be entitled to be appointed as an assistant teacher
and would be entitled to the salary of an assistant teacher on
completion of three years of satisfactory service as a shikshan sevak. It
is stated that it is clearly mentioned in the policy laid down in the
government resolution that the absence of shikshan sevak would not be
considered as service period. It is submitted that since the petitioner
had not actually worked as shikshan sevak for the period from
01/04/2010 till 08/11/2011 the said period could not have been
considered as the service of the petitioner on the post of shikshan sevak.
5. In the circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to
grant the relief sought by the petitioner in its entirety. Though the
grievance committee has granted reinstatement to the petitioner with
continuity of service, the grievance committee has not granted salary to
the petitioner for the period during which the petitioner was out of
service. It appears from the order of the grievance committee that the
grievance committee was inclined to grant only continuity of service to
the petitioner. The petitioner has admittedly not worked for the period
between 01/04/2010 and 08/11/2011. On a reading of the government
2103WP4574.13-Judgment 4/4
resolution, it appears that the absence of a shikshan sevak from duty
except the holidays cannot be considered as service period. If that is so,
the absence of the petitioner from service from 01/04/2010 till
08/11/2011 cannot be considered as effective service period of the
petitioner as a shikshan sevak, more so when the grievance committee
had not held so and has granted only continuity of services to the
petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, since the petitioner was
reinstated on 08/11/2011 and had worked as a shikshan sevak from
26/02/2010 till 01/04/2010, it would be necessary to grant the pay
scale of an assistant teacher to the petitioner from 01/10/2014. The
petitioner would be entitled to the pay scale of an assistant teacher from
01/10/2014.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The respondent-corporation is directed to grant the pay scale
of an assistant teacher to the petitioner with effect from 01/10/2014.
The arrears of difference of salary should be paid to the petitioner
within three months. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with
no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
