Archana Prakash Mitke vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3956 Bom

                                     1                 983-WP-7364-2020

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 7364 OF 2020


Archana D/o Prakash Mitke                                ...Petitioner

        Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others                      ...Respondents



Mr G.K. Chinchole, Advocate holding for
Mr S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr P.K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 7
Mr S.R. Bagal, Advocate for Respondent No. 4 and 5


                                CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND
                                        SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

                                 DATE    : 3rd MARCH, 2021

 PER COURT :

1. The petitioner impugns the order, thereby stopping the salary of

the petitioner.

2. The impugned order is passed on the ground that validity

certificate is not yet submitted.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

learned counsel for the respondents and the learned Assistant

Government Pleader.

4. The petitioner had earlier filed writ petition stamp bearing

(Stamp) No. 11318/2020. This Court under judgment and order dated 6 th

July, 2020 disposed of the writ petition directing the Committee to decide

2 983-WP-7364-2020

the validation proceeding expeditiously and also restrained the employer

from taking further action against the petitioner.

5. The employer has again issued impugned communication,

thereby stopping the salary of the petitioner on the ground that the validity

certificate is not submitted.

6. To get the validation proceeding decided within the stipulated

period is not in the hands of the litigant, and precisely, we observed the

same while passing the judgment and order dated 6 th July, 2020 in the

earlier writ petition bearing (Stamp) No. 11318/2020 filed by the petitioner.

In fact, the respondents ought not to have issued the impugned

communication in view of the order passed by this Court earlier.

7. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.

8. The respondent Nos. 4 to 6 shall not take adverse action

against the petitioner only on the ground that the validation proceeding is

pending.

9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the

Committee has proceeded further with the validation proceeding and the

arguments of the parties have been heard by the Committee.

10. The learned counsel for the employer submits that the salary

bills are submitted and the salary is being paid to the petitioner.

3 983-WP-7364-2020

11. The respondents may take further course of action depending

upon the judgment that would be delivered by the Committee in the

validation proceeding.

12. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

[ SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J. ] [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

mta