The Secretary Balaji Pandhari Pandhare ... vs Vishnudas Bhagwanrao Mote And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 2038 Bom

Bombay High Court

The Secretary Balaji Pandhari Pandhare ... vs Vishnudas Bhagwanrao Mote And Another on 23 January, 2024

                                  1                 W.P. No. 6899-23.odt




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

            WRIT PETITION NO. 6899 OF 2023
THE SECRETARY BALAJI PANDHARI PANDHARE AND ANOTHER
                           VERSUS
     VISHNUDAS BHAGWANRAO MOTE AND ANOTHER
                               ...
         Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. M.V. Ghatge
        AGP for Respondent No.2 : Mrs. R.R. Tandale
       Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. S. S. Manale
                               ...

                             CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.

DATE : 23.01.2024

PER COURT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

counsel for respondent No.1. Since the urgency was expressed,

the matter was listed for hearing today.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that

the Tribunal did not consider the document of misappropriation

and 12 case laws and passed the illegal order. It has also been

argued that the order of re-instatement of respondent No.1 with

full back wages is apparently illegal. The judgment of the

Tribunal is apparently illegal. Hence it may be stayed.

3. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.1

would submit that the case law relied upon by the petitioners

were irrelevant. The impugned judgment is legal, proper and

correct. The petitions are deliberately objecting the orders of the

Tribunal. It is a money decree. If the petitioner wants stay, they

should deposit the back wages. Respondent No.1 has no other

source of income. He is in dire need of job and the money.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that the School is Government aided. The Education

Officer has to pay the salary. Therefore, the petitioner is not

liable to pay the salary. Hence, he is not required to deposit the

money.

5. The submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant

reveals that the financial burden was not on the petitioners. They

have to submit the bill to the Eduction officer for releasing the

arrears as per order of this Court. If such is the condition, the

petitioners is not entitled for stay to the impugned order.

Whether, the Tribunal considered the case laws or the document

is a matter of merits .

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that this

matter be listed for final hearing now. It seems there is no

urgency to list the matter out of turn for final hearing for the

above reasons and the fact that financial burden is not on the

petitioner. In view of the facts this Court is of the opinion that

this is not a fit case to stay the impugned order of the School

Tribunal.

7. Issue notice to the respondents. The learned counsel Mr.

S.S. Manale waives service of notice for respondent No.1. The

learned A.G.P. waives service of notice for respondents-state.

8. Needless to mention that the observations mentioned

would not come in the way of the execution proceeding.

9. List the matter in due course.

( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGE ysk