← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/2655/2003disposed offdismissed for default

Bhika Sakharam Kamble And ANR v. Hind Seva Mandal Ahmednagar And ORS

2015-09-14Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.V. Nirgude,Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.K. Jadhav3 pages

( 1 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2921 OF 2003 Katore Sitaram Bhavka and another ..PETITIONERS

VERSUS

Hind Seva Mandal, Ahmednagar, and ors ..RESPONDENTS Mr.Darshan D. Pokharkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.V.Natu, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr.S.D.Kaldate, AGP for the respondent Nos.3 & 4/ State. Mr.S.R.Barlinge, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 & 2, 5 & 6.

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2938 OF 2003 Pramila Yeshwant Mhaske Alis ..PETITIONERS Pramila Dinkar Sathe

VERSUS

Hind Seva Mandal, Ahmednagar, and ors ..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2655 OF 2003 Bhika Sakharam Kamble and another ..PETITIONERS

VERSUS

Hind Seva Mandal, Ahmednagar, and ors ..RESPONDENTS Mr.V.D.Salunke, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.S.V.Natu, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr.S.T.Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.3

( 2 ) Mr.S.D.Kaldate, AGP for the respondent Nos.4/ State. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.48 OF 2004 Dilip Vithal Dudhal & Ors ..PETITIONERS

VERSUS

Hind Seva Mandal, Ahmednagar, and ors ..RESPONDENTS Mr.S.R.Barlinge, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.D.Kaldate, AGP for the respondent Nos.2 to 5/ State Mr.S.T.Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.6 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2937 OF 2003 Chandrika Chandrashekhar Pathak ..PETITIONER Alias Sadhana Vasant Joshi

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra and ors ..RESPONDENTS Mr.Abhijeet B. Kale, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.D.Kaldate, AGP for the respondent Nos.1/ State Mr.S.T.Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.5 CORAM : A.V.NIRGUDE & V.K.JADHAV, JJ.

DATED :

14.09.2015 P.C. :- 1.

All these petitions can be disposed of through this common order. These petitions are almost infructuous, because the petitioners had secured their

( 3 ) services at interim stage and they are in service since then. The only question that could arise is regarding their seniority in the school where they are working. The question of seniority can be decided by appropriate authority. The petitioners are given liberty to approach to the concerned authority for deciding the question of seniority.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioners state that the salary for the period of one month i.e. July, 2003 was not paid to the petitioners. The respondent institution may submit the bill for the said period to the Pay Unit / Education Officer.

3.

All the petitions stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty.

[V.K.JADHAV, J.] [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] VishalK/wp2921.03