← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/10218/2013disposed off

Smt. Sonal Laxman Jadhav v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

2016-08-08Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Anuja Prabhudessai,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ranjit More.2 pages

Sr.No.16 WP 10218.13 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10218 OF 2013 Smt. Sonal Laxman Jadhav ....Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and ors.

...Respondents

Mr. S. S Pakale i/b. Mr. S. M. Katkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP for the State.

Mr. Subhash Langote i/b. Mr. V. A. Madane, advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

DATE : 8th AUGUST, 2016.

P. C. :

Mr. Langote, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 having taken instructions from his client, who is present before the Court, stated as under :

1. The petitioner is appointed in unaided school in the year 2007 and her appointment was approved by the Education Officer in the year 2010 w.e.f 18th July, 2007 in the pay-scale of Rs.4500/- to 7000/-.

2. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 does not dispute that the petitioner was not paid salary as per the prescribed pay-scale.

3. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall post the petition against the aided post in respondent No.4 - High School and thereafter, she will be paid regularly in accordance with the prescribed pay-scale and will be treated as regular employee for all the purposes. Shubhada S Kadam 1/2

Sr.No.16 WP 10218.13

4. So far as arrears of wages are concerned, Mr. Langote stated that on 5th August, 2016, an amount of Rs.1,86,000/- has been deposited in the petitioner's account, and in addition to this, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall pay the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- over and above the amount already deposited by way of full and final satisfaction of the petitioner's claims towards the arrears of salary within a period of four weeks from today. The statements are accepted.

5.

In the light of the above statements, Mr. Pakale having taken instructions from the petitioner, who is present before the Court, does not press this petition. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of as not pressed.

6.

In view of the disposal of the petition, civil application Nos. 297 and 1202 of 2016 will not survive for consideration and same are accordingly disposed of.

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) [RANJIT MORE, J.] Shubhada S Kadam 2/2