Dr. Rakshit Madan Bagde vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10163 Bom

Judgment                                 1                  35.wp.2255.2020.judg.odt




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

                   WRIT PETITION NO.2255 OF 2020

      Dr. Rakshit Madan Bagde,
      Aged 37 Yrs., Occu.: Service,
      R/o. At Kham ari (Bk), Post
      Neri, Tal. Mohadi, Dist. Bhandara                   .... PETITIONER

                                // VERSUS //

     1. The State of Maharashtra,
       Through its Secretary,
      Department of Higher and Technical
      Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

     2. The Director of Higher Education,
      State of Maharashtra, Central
      Building, Pune-1

     3. The Joint Director of Higher Education,
      State of Maharashtra, Nagpur Division,
      Civil Lines, Nagpur.

     4. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj,
      Nagpur University, Nagpur through
      its Registrar, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

     5. Janjagruti Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
      Tumsar, through its President,
      C/o. Late Mansaramji Padole Arts
      College, Ganeshpur, Rajiv Gandhi
      Chowk, Bhandara, Dist. Bhandara

    6. Late Mansaramji Padole Arts College,
     Bhandara through its Principal,
     Ganeshpur, Rajiv Gandhi Chowk,
     Bhandara, Dist. Bhandara.                .... RESPONDENTS
___________________________________________________________________
      Mr B. G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner
      Ms N. P. Mehta, AGP for the respondent Nos. 1to 3
      Mr P. C. Marpakwar, Advocate for respondent No. 6
___________________________________________________________________
 Judgment                             2                35.wp.2255.2020.judg.odt




                                CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                        G. A. SANAP, JJ.

DATED : 03.10.2022

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

1] Heard. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2] The reply of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is taken on record.

3] Considering the fact that the respondent No.1 has granted

permission to release the salary of the petitioner from 02.05.2014 and

also the fact that for the period from 29.04.2017 to 23.07.2019

responsibility to pay the arrears of salary has been based upon

respondent Nos. 5 & 6, we are of the view that now there is no

impediment in granting approval to the pay fixation of the petitioner

with basic pay of Rs.18,840/- with applicable AGP, as of 02.05.2014 in

the pay scale 15600-39100 with applicable AGP and as such we direct

the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner accordingly. As regards

the arrears of salary for the period from 29.04.2017 to 23.07.2019, the

issue be sorted out by the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 & 6 in

between themselves.

Judgment 3 35.wp.2255.2020.judg.odt

4] The arrears of salary be released within three months from

the date of the order. The petition is accordingly disposed of in above

terms. Rule accordingly. No costs.

                                              (G. A. SANAP, J.)          (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)




                                Kavita.




Signed By:KAVITA PRAVIN
TAYADE
P. A.

Signing Date:03.10.2022 17:06