Nandini Bajirao Wakte v. The National Association For The Blinds Through Its President Bhagchand Fakirchand Chudiwal And ORS
2025:BHC-AUG:15098-DB 12-ca3133.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3133 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9014 OF 2024 Nandini Bajirao Wakte vs.
National Association for the Blinds and ors.
---- Mr.V.P.Golewar, Advocate for applicant Mr.P.V.Barde, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mr.P.S.Patil, AGP for respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 Mr.P.P.Kothari, Advocate for respondent no.5 ---- WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9014 OF 2024 ----
CORAM
:
R.G.AVACHAT AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
DATE :
JUNE 13, 2025 ORDER :- This Court had passed following order on 26.08.2024 in Writ Petition No.9014 of 2024:- In spite of the finding of the Industrial Court, directing the respondent no.4 herein, who was respondent no.4 even before the Industrial Tribunal, to treat/re-designate her as caretaker and her challenge to this finding in Writ Petition No.1168/2018 was turned down and the order was even confirmed up to the Supreme Court, by the impugned order, the respondent no.2/Commissioner has once again directed her to be designated as a cook.
12-ca3133.2025
2. Issue notice for final disposal to the respondents, returnable on 23.09.2024. Learned AGP waives service for respondent no.1 and 2.
3. Operation of the order only to the extent it directs the respondent no.4 to be designated as cook, is stayed, till the next date.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to argue the petition, on the ground that today itself, he has received reply of the State Government.
3.
Learned counsel for respondent no.5 submits that due to the above-referred interim order passed by this Court, respondent no.3, who is the employer of respondent no.5 is not paying salary for the post of Caretaker on which respondent no.5 is presently working. He submits that necessary directions may be issued. 4.
Learned counsel for respondent no.3, who is supervisory authority of respondent no.4, submits that the petitioner is working as on the date with respondent no.3. The controversy is as to whether respondent no.4 is working as a Cook or Caretaker. 5.
We make it clear that the above-referred order will not come in the way of respondent no.3 in paying and disbursing the salary of respondent no.5 for the post of Caretaker and her entitlement for the post of Cook will be decided in the Writ Petition. The application is rejected.
12-ca3133.2025 6.
List the Writ Petition on 11.07.2025.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [R.G. AVACHAT, J.] KBP