Nagendra Vishwantrao ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 835 Bom

                                                    Writ Petition No.2796/2013
                                      (( 1 ))


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD



                        WRIT PETITION NO.2796 OF 2013



 Nagendra Vishwantrao Dhondihipargekar
 Age 40 years, Occu. Service,
 R/o Dhondihiperga, Tq. Udgir,
 District Latur                        ...               PETITIONER


          VERSUS


 1.       The State of Maharashtra
          through its Secretary,
          Department of Social Welfare,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai

 2.       The Divisional Social Welfare Officer,
          Latur Division, Latur.

 3.       District Social Welfare Officer,
          Latur, District Latur.

 4.       Rambhau Mahalgi Primary Ashram
          Shala, Wadhvana (Bk.), Tq. Udgir,
          District Latur,
          through its Head Master

 5.       Deonagari Bahuddeshiya Shikshan
          Prasarak Mandal, Deoni,
          Tq. Deoni, District Latur
          through its Secretary           ...            RESPONDENTS



                                 .....
 Shri S.G. Rudrawar, Advocate for petitioner
 Shri M.M. Nerlikar, A.G.P. for State
 Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for respondent No.5
                                 .....



::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2018                    ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2018 02:03:26 :::
                                                            Writ Petition No.2796/2013
                                         (( 2 ))




                                   CORAM:      T.V. NALAWADE AND
                                               SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

DATED : 23rd JANUARY, 2018.

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

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both

sides by consent for final disposal.

2. The petition is filed for giving directions, particularly

to respondent Nos.4 and 5 to make the payment of salary to the

petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 from 23.6.2003 till

the date of petition.

3. The submissions made show that, appointment was

given to the present petitioner, who is M.Com. B.Ed. in primary

section of Ashram Shala run by respondent Nos.4 and 5. It is the

contention of the petitioner that, nothing was paid to him though

he continued to work as Assistant Teacher in the said school. It

appears that, proposal was sent by respondent Nos.4 and 5 for

approval, but it was rejected. It is the contention of the

respondent Nos.4 and 5 that the proposal was rejected and the

petitioner was removed from service. On the other hand, it is

the case of petitioner that, even after rejection of the approval,

Writ Petition No.2796/2013 (( 3 ))

he continued to work as Assistant Teacher till the year 2013.

4. Only because there is order of appointment given by

respondent Nos.4 and 5 showing that the petitioner was

appointed in the pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000, this Court holds

that, the respondents are liable to pay the salary to the petitioner

in that scale. It is the contention of respondents that they were

paying salary of Rs.3000/- or Rs.4000/- per month to the

petitioner. Thus, the respondents have admitted that they never

paid the salary to the petitioner in the aforesaid pay-scale.

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted that, the

petitioner is now claiming the salary for the period starting from

2003 and in ordinary course, in civil law, he cannot claim

recovery of the amount which is barred by law of limitation.

5. This Court holds that, the petitioner can claim the

salary in aforesaid scale in respect of the period of three years

which is preceding to the period of filing of the present

proceedings i.e. preceding to 13.3.2013. That enquiry can be

made by respondent No.3, the Social Welfare Officer and that

amount can be recovered from the respondent Nos.4 and 5.

6. In the result, the petition is allowed. Respondent

No.3 to make enquiry into the factual aspect to ascertain as to up

Writ Petition No.2796/2013 (( 4 ))

to which date the petitioner was in service and he was actually

working in the school and then the amount be calculated for the

period of three years preceding to the date of filing of this

petition i.e. 13.3.2013. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 will be liable

to pay that amount to the petitioner and if that amount is not

paid, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 need to take appropriate action

against respondent Nos.4 and 5. If the amount is not paid within

one month from the date of calculation, the amount will carry

interest @ 8% p.a. In those terms, rule is made absolute.

          ( SUNIL K. KOTWAL )         ( T.V. NALAWADE )
               JUDGE                         JUDGE




 fmp/