Mahindra Pandit Lokhande vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2366 Bom

                                 1                921- W.P. No. 11921-2019.odt




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                921 WRIT PETITION NO.11921 OF 2019

       Mahindra S/p Pandit Lokhande,
       Age : 29 Years, Occ. Service,
       R/o. Dabhadi Tq. Badnapur
       District Jalna.                       ..PETITIONER

           VERSUS

1.     The State of Maharashtra
       Through the Secretary
       Education Department, Mantralaya,
       Mumbai-31.

2.     The Education Ofcer,
       Zilla Parishad Jalna

3.     The President/ Secretary,
       Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha,
       C/o Shivaji Vidyalaya, Dabhadi,
       Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna

4.     Shivaji Vidyalaya, Dabhadi,
       Through its- Head Master,
       R/o. Dab hadi Tq. Bandnapur
       District Jalna.                      .. RESPONDENTS
                                ...

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shrikant Kulkarni A.G.P for Respondents No.1 : Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya Respondent No.2 served Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 : Mr. A.P. Piratwad & Harshad and 4 Padalkar ...

CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA & S.G. MEHARE JJ.

DATE : 09.03.2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER R.D. DHANUKA J.) :-

Rule. The learned A.G.P waives service of notice for

respondent Nos. 1 and Mr. A.P. Piratwad, the learned counsel for

respondent No.3 and 4 waives service of notice. Respondent

No.2 is absent though served.

2. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. By this petition fled under Article 226 Constitution of

India, the petitioner has prayed for Writ of Mandamus against

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay entire salary of the petitioner

along with arrears from the date of appointment of the

petitioner i.e. 13th August 2013.

4. The petitioner was appointed on the post of peon on

compassionate ground on the vacancy arisen due to demise of

father of the petitioner who died on 29th February 2012. On

13th August 2013, respondent No.3 issued appointment order in

favour of the petitioner on the vacant post of peon. On 24 th

August 2013 the petitioner was appointed in the respondent

No.4 school as a peon and since then he is serving in the said

school.

5. On 26th September 2013 respondent No.4 submitted

proposal to the Education Ofcer for approval of the

appointment of the petitioner to the post of peon. The said

proposal is still pending.

6. Respondent No.2 cannot refuse to take any action, on the

proposal submitted by the School Management for seeking

approval of the appointment of the petitioner on the post of

peon pending for last several years. In our view, the inaction

on the part of the Education Ofcer, Jalna in not considering the

proposal for approval of the appointment of the petitioner for

several years is totally illegal and amounts to dereliction of

duty. The copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Dy.

Director of Education to look into the matter personally and to

take an appropriate action against the Education Ofcer, Zilla

Parishad Jalna.

7. The Education Ofcer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna is directed to

consider and pass an order on the proposal submitted by the

Management within two weeks from the date of communication

of this order without fail. If this order is not complied with by

respondent No.2, this Court will initiate a proceeding under the

provisions of Contempt of Court Act 1971 along with Article 215

of the constitution of India against the erring ofcer.

8. The Writ Petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. No order as

to costs.

9. Rule is made absolute.

10. Mr. Lakhotiya, learned A.G.P agrees to convey this order to

respondent No.2 and the Deputy Director of Education for

information and compliance. The order that will be passed by

respondent No.2 shall be communicated to the petitioner as

well as management within one week from the date of passing

order. If the approval is granted, the consequential relief shall

be granted to the petitioner by including the name of the

petitioner in the Shalarth Pranali within two weeks from the

date of granting approval. If the approval is rejected on any

ground, the petitioner would be at liberty to fle appropriate

proceeding. In that event the Management shall not take any

coercive steps against the petitioner for the period of four

weeks from the date of communication of the order.

         (S.G. MEHARE J.)                     ( R.D. DHANUKA J. )




ysk