Administrative Officer (Education Dept. Primary) , Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal School Board v. Shri Sant Tukaram Maharaj Shikshan Sanstha And ORS

RVC 1a. RPW 06 of 2024 and RPW 07 of 2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 06 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2079 OF 2022 Administrative Officer, (Education Department Primary) ... Petitioner V/s.

Shri Sant Tukaram Maharaj Shikshan Sanstha And Ors ... Respondents WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 07 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2161 OF 2022 Administrative Officer, (Education Department Primary) ... Petitioner V/s.

Shri Sant Tukaram Maharaj Shikshan Sanstha And Ors ... Respondents Mr. Deepak R. More a/w Mr. Shivram A. Gawade for Petitioner in both Review Petitions.

Mr. Rahul S. Kadam for Respondent No.1.

Mr. B.S. Nayak for original Petitioner in both Writ Petitions and for Respondent No.2 in both Review Petitions.

Mr. N.C. Walimbe, Addl. Government Pleader with Ms. P.N. Diwan, AGP for the State.

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND S.M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 16th January 2024.

P.C. :

1) It is an admitted fact on record that, in the prayer clauses of Petitions the substantive relief was sought against original Respondent No.3, i.e. The State of Maharashtra, through the Principal Secretary Education 1/2

RVC 1a. RPW 06 of 2024 and RPW 07 of 2024.doc Department (Primary). Despite the said fact, an error has crept in while transcribing the dictation of Order dated 13th July, 2022. 2) In the said Order dated 13th July, 2022, it has been directed that, Respondent No.2 shall process the salary bills submitted by the Petitioner for payment of arrears of salary of Respondent No.1 herein. 3) Mr. More, learned counsel for Review Petitioner submitted that, the Review Petitioner is in no way concerned with payment of salary in grant-in-Aid of school and the same is totally concerned with the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune i.e. Respondent No.3. 4) Mr. Kadam, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2, have fairly admitted the said fact.

5) In view thereof, there is an apparent error on the face of record in the Order dated 13th July, 2022 and therefore it needs to be recalled. 6) Review Petitions are accordingly allowed.

7) Order dated 13th July, 2022 is recalled.

8) Registry is directed to place the Petitions before appropriate Bench.

9) Parties are granted liberty to mention the Petitions before appropriate Bench.

( S.M. MODAK, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. ) 2/2 RAJESH VASANT CHITTEWAN Date: 2024.01.18 19:14:39 +0530 RAJESH VASANT CHITTEWAN