Sitaram M. Prajapati vs Gyanodaya Vidya Mandir Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7181 Bom

                                                                  56.6767.21-wp.docx

         Digitally
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TRUSHA
         signed by
         TRUSHA
         TUSHAR
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
TUSHAR   MOHITE
MOHITE   Date:
         2022.07.29
         16:59:02
         +0530                            WRIT PETITION NO.6767 OF 2021


                      Sitaram M. Prajapati                                 ..... Petitioner

                               Vs.

                      Gyanodaya Vidya Mandir and Ors.                      ..... Respondents


                      Mr.R.S.Apte, Sr.Counsel i/b Mr.Mayuresh S. Lagu for the Petitioner

                      Mrs.M.S.Bane, A.G.P. for the State

                      Mr.Arvind Kothari for respondent nos.1 and 2


                                               CORAM:      S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                                           MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ.

                                               DATED :     JULY 26 2022

                      P.C.

                      1        The Petitioner seeks multifarious reliefs. One such relief is

challenging the recovery of the salary paid from the year 2010.

2 The same it appears is claimed under the communication of the

year 2021. It appears that pursuant to the consent terms, salary

details are submitted by the Management. Same are sanctioned.

Services of the Petitioner are also approved by the Education Officer

w.e.f. 01.10.2008. Said order of approval does not seem to have

been set aside. In view of the order of approval, Petitioner would be

Mohite 1/2 56.6767.21-wp.docx

entitled for the salary for the period Petitioner is reinstated and that

approval has been granted to it. Even otherwise, recovery cannot be

claimed from Class-III Employees after such a long period.

Reference can be made to the judgment of the State of Punjab and

others etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. reported in 2015

(4) SCC 334.

3 In light of that, order to the extent of recovery is quashed and

set aside. With regard to other reliefs claimed, Petitioner can

approach the Committee constituted under G.R. dated 26.02.2020.

4 Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR,J.)                  (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)




Mohite                                                                  2/2