Gramin Vikas Sanstha, ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 16107 Bom

                                                                   WP.1387.21.J
                                             1


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

WRIT PETITION NO. 1387/2021

1. Gramin Vikas Sanstha Hinganghat, Dist.Wardha Through its Secretary Janrao s/o Ramchandra Raut, Aged 75 years, R/o Hinganghat Tq. Hinganghat, Dist.Wardha.

2. R.S.Bidkar Arts, Commerce and Science College, Hinganghat Dist.Wardha Through Its Officiating Principal, Ranjan Shrawan Ghubde. ..PETITIONERS

versus

1. State of Maharashtra Through Secretary to Ministry of Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2. Joint Director of Higher Education Nagpur Region, Nagpur, Old Morris College Building Nagpur.

3. Dr.Bhaskar s/o Govindrao Ambatkar Aged about 65 years, occu. Principal R.S. Bidkar Arts, Commerce and Science College, Hinganghat, Dist.Wardha.

4. Chandrashekhar s/o Uttamrao Kute Aged about 34 years, occu: Laboratory Assistant R.S. Bidkar Arts,Commerce and Science College Hinganghat, Dist.Wardha.

WP.1387.21.J

5. Director of Higher Education {Res.No.5 added vide Maharashtra State Court's order dtd.16.7.21} Central building, Pune 411001. .. .. RESPONDENTS ..................................................................................................................

Mr R.L.Khapre, Sr.Advocate a/b. Vijaykumar Paliwal, Advocate for petitioners Mrs.Ketaki Joshi, Govt. Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 Mr. A.S. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent nos.3 and 4 ................................................................................................................

CORAM: SUNIL B. SHUKRE & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ DATED : 22nd November, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SUNIL B.SHUKRE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent.

2. The respondent no.5 - newly added respondent has not

filed any reply in the matter. The order dated 16th July 2021 highlights

the importance of reply of respondent no.5 but, of course, filing or not

filing of reply, is the choice of the respondent no.5 and we leave the

matter at that position only.

3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that

if the Investigating Officer approaches the Managing Committee of the

petitioner no.1-Sanstha for grant of sanction for prosecuting the

respondent nos.3 and 4 under the provisions of Prevention of

Corruption Act, the Managing Committee must take appropriate

WP.1387.21.J

decision.

4. Mr. R.L.Khapre, learned senior Advocate for the petitioners

submits on instructions that the Managing Committee of the petitioner

no.1 would take appropriate decision in the matter in such an

eventuality.

5. It is pointed out that now the subsistence allowance has

already been released in March 2020 and it has also been received by

respondent nos.3 and 4. Now the only issue which remains to be

resolved is in respect of non-payment of salary to respondents 3 and 4

for the period from 1st March 2020 to 20th February 2021 and thereafter

till date. In this regard, we find that though a decision ought to have

been taken by respondent no.5 regarding grant of approval for

prosecution of respondent nos.3 and 4 or otherwise, the respondent no.

5 did not take any decision and it is today only, by way of oral

submission, it has been submitted that the Managing Committee would

take a proper decision. Perusal of reply filed by the respondent nos.1

and 2 along with documents annexed thereto would show that the

respondent no.5 was approached for appropriate decision/guidance in

the matter way back in July 2020 but he did not make any response. In

such a case, no blame can entirely be placed on the shoulders of the

Managing Committee of the petitioner no.1 in reinstating in service of

WP.1387.21.J

respondent nos.3 and 4. Of course, it would be a different matter if a

decision regarding prosecution of respondent nos. 3 and 4 is taken by

the Managing Committee but till the time such a decision is taken, it

would be necessary that salary which is due and payable to the

respondent nos.3 and 4 is paid by the Management and since the

petitioner no.2 is a college which is receiving grant-in -aid, necessary

funds for the same would also have to be released by respondent nos.1

and 2. Accordingly, we direct the respondent nos.1 and 2 to release

the funds for payment of salary to the respondent nos.3 and 4 for the

period claimed in Prayer clause (1) and also for the further period, till

till the time appropriate decision is taken by the Managing Committee

regarding prosecution of respondent nos. 3 and 4 under the provisions

of Prevention of Corruption Act or otherwise.

6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

                         JUDGE                        JUDGE

sahare