Bombay High Court
Usha Venkatrao Deshpande Alias ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 2 August, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep Vishnupant Marne
.. 1 ..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
931 WRIT PETITION NO.4633 OF 2019
USHA VENKATRAO DESHPANDE
ALIAS USHA PADMAKAR SHEWALKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Shivkumar K. Mathpati
AGP for Respondent / State : Mrs. R.P. Gour
Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. S.B. Ghute
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
DATE : 02-08-2022
PER COURT :
1. We have heard Mr. S.K. Mathpati, learned Advocate for
the petitioner, Mr. S.B. Ghute, learned advocate for respondent nos.2
and 3 and Mrs. R.P. Gour, learned AGP, finally, at the stage of
admission. The case presents yet another instance as to how the
Senior Officer of the District Administration can act arbitrarily,
capriciously and whimsically.
2. The dispute has been only in respect of the pay scale to
which the petitioner is entitled to. There is no dispute about the
scale. The only dispute seems to be as to whether the petitioner, who
has been appointed prior to 1972 is to be regarded as deemed trained
.. 2 ..
teacher in view of the Government Resolution dated 16.03.2016. Not
only the petitioner, but several other similarly placed persons had
approached this Court in a group of matters. By the order dated
30.01.2017, the Zilla Parishad was called upon to decide their
applications / representations / proposals within a stipulated time.
That having not taken place, some of them had to approach this
Court including the petitioner, in contempt. A direction was issued in
the contempt proceedings and thereafter the impugned order seems
to have been passed by the then Chief Executive Officer of Zilla
Parishad, Hingoli.
3. Simply by referring to various government resolutions, it
has been ordered that since the petitioner was not a trained teacher
she was not entitled to the scale she was demanding. The decision is
in complete disregard to not only the Government Resolution dated
16.03.2016 which would demonstrate that the petitioner, who was
recruited prior to the cut off date of 1972 to be a deemed trained
teacher, when her date of appointment is also not under challenge,
but also the decision of this Court in respect of similarly placed
teachers, in Writ Petition No.1311 of 1997 (supra) with connected
writ petitions by the judgment and order dated 13.02.2014. The
Chief Executive Officer indeed bold enough to pass the impugned
.. 3 ..
order.
4. Having considered the rival submissions and the
aforementioned aspects, we hold that the petitioner's case is fully
covered by the decision dated 13.02.2014 (page no.54) and is
entitled to a similar relief. We dispose of the writ petition in terms of
that order.
5. Since the petitioner was appointed prior to July - 1972
holding S.S.C. qualification and was entitled to be declared as
deemed trained teacher and to draw salary in the pay band of
Rs.1200-2040 since 1986 and in the pay band of Rs.4500-7000 since
1996 onwards, necessary orders shall now be passed and monetary
benefits be paid to her as early as possible and in any event within a
period of three months.
( SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. ) ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. )
GGP
