Miss Snehalata Narayanrao ... vs The President,Gramin Vikas ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7720 Bom

                                    1
                                                              wp1745.01.odt

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

                          Writ Petition No.1745 of 2001


Miss Snehalata Narayanrao Deshmukh,
Aged about 35 years,
Occupation - Service,
R/o C/o Shri Raju Salve's House,
At & P.O. Samudrapur (Jam),
District Wardha.                                        ... Petitioner


      Versus


1.    The President,
      Gramin Vikas Sanstha,
      (Shikshan Maharshi Shri Krishnarao
      Zoting Patil) Arts & Commerce College,
      Samudrapur,
      District - Wardha.

2.    The Principal,
      (Shikshan Maharshi Shri Krishnarao
      Zoting Patil) Arts & Commerce College,
      Samudrapur,
      District - Wardha.

3.    The Joint Director,
      Higher Education (Grants),
      Near Old Morris College Building,
      Sitabuldi, Nagpur.

4.    The Deputy Registrar (Special Cell),
      Nagpur University,
      Nagpur.                                             ... Respondents




 ::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2017                      ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2017 00:42:27 :::
                                    2
                                                              wp1745.01.odt



Shri A.S. Thotange, holding for Shri U.J. Deshpande, Advocates for 
Petitioner.
Shri V.K. Paliwal, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri   B.M.   Lonare,   Assistant   Government   Pleader   for   Respondent 
No.3.
Ms Tajwar Khan, Advocate for Respondent No.4.


              Coram : R.K. Deshpande & Manish Pitale, JJ.

th Date : 29 September, 2017

Oral Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) :

1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks an

adjournment in the matter on the ground that the petitioner wanted

to engage a Senior Advocate.

2. On 8-9-2017, we heard the matter and passed an order as

under :

" The complaint is that, with effect from 01.07.1997, the petitioner is not being paid salary, although for earlier period from 15.12.1995 to 30.06.1997 she was regularly paid the salary on the post of Physical Education Teacher.

wp1745.01.odt

Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in spite of the order dated 04.02.2003, the salary is not being paid and the petitioner is still working on the post. Shri Paliwal, the learned counsel appearing for the Management submits that the petitioner has left the job and she is not in the employment.

In view of the aforesaid position, the petitioner to file an affidavit as to whether she is working on the post till today and whether regular salary is being paid to her. The respondent-Management should also file an affidavit on both these aspects. The Joint Director, Higher Education should also file an affidavit as to why the salary of the petitioner has not been released if the respondent College is being run on grant-in-aid basis and the appointment of the petitioner is made in accordance with law.

Put up this matter on 29.09.2017.

If the petitioner or the respondents fail to file affidavit in this Court on or before the next date, they will have to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) to the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Nagpur."

wp1745.01.odt

3. The matter is part-heard and it is, therefore, not

possible for us to grant an adjournment for engaging a Senior

Advocate. We feel that this is a device adopted by the petitioner to

prolong the matter and the prayer for adjournment is not bona fide.

We, therefore, reject the same.

4. In response to our order dated 8-9-2017, reproduced

above, the respondents have filed an affidavit, the petitioner has also

filed an affidavit, and we have gone through the same.

5. The petitioner was appointed as a Physical Education

Teacher in the respondent No.2-College on 15-12-1995 and she was

terminated from service on 13-9-1997. Thereafter, there is no order

of her fresh appointment or of continuation in service. It is the

stand of the petitioner that thereafter she is continuously working on

the post till today, and in support of her contention she has

placed on record certain photographs of the functions conducted in

wp1745.01.odt

the College. According to the petitioner, her appointment was in

the Arts faculty.

6. The stand of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the College

authorities, is that the petitioner was terminated from service with

effect from 13-9-1997 and thereafter she is no longer in service.

They have stated that the appointment of the petitioner was in the

Commerce faculty on no-grant basis and the reference is made to the

biometric machine (thumb machine) for marking the attendance of

the employees, installed in the College, and it is urged that the

petitioner is not working on the post. It is also the stand of the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the Commerce faculty was closed

down. The stand of the respondent No.3-Joint Director, Higher

Education (Grants), is that the post was not admissible for grants.

7. There is a serious dispute about the continuation of the

petitioner in service beyond 13-9-1997. It is, therefore, not possible

for this Court to enter into the disputed questions of fact. Except

producing on record the photographs in respect of certain functions,

wp1745.01.odt

which even failed to establish the identity of the petitioner, there is

nothing on record to show that the petitioner has been working

continuously after 13-9-1997 till this date.

8. There is no substance in the petition. The same is

dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.

(Manish Pitale, J.) (R.K. Deshpande, J.)

Nandurkar, PA