Shivaji Hullapa Apte v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 917 CONT. PETITION NO.270 OF 2022 IN WP/6816/2020 WITH CP/272/2022 IN WP/6816/2020 THE SHAMLAL SRAMRAK SHIKSHAN SANSTHA THR ITS PRESIDENT SUPOSHPANI SADAVIJAY ARYAAND ANOTHER

VERSUS

TRUPTI VIKRAMRAO ANDHARE AND ANOTHER Mr. R. D. Biradar, Advocate & Mr. B. R. Kedar, Advocate for the petitioners in respective petitions.

Mr. S. G. Karlekar, AGP for the respondents/State CORAM:RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

DATE:13th July, 2022 P. C.

1.

We have considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the respective sides. 2.

The Education Officer, Nagesh Mapari has filed an affidavit-in-reply on 12-07-2022 indicating that he has assumed charge only on 2402-2022 and order of this court is dated 17-08-

(2) 2021, which was to be complied with by the management and then by the Education Officer. 3.

The learned AGP submits that the pay fixation of the employee has been carried out as the management was not rendering any assistance. On the basis of available documents, such pay fixation was carried out and the employee is now receiving pension. Nevertheless, a hearing can be arranged in the next week and after considering the stand of the management, as well as of the employee, the pay fixation can be rectified and accordingly, the pension amount can be reassessed, if there is any error. 4.

In view of the above, both these petitions are disposed off with the following directions:-

(3) a] The employee as well as the management are put to notice that they shall appear before the Education Officer (Secondary) on 25-07-2022 at 11.00 am.

b] Notices are dispensed with.

c] The Education Officer would conduct and complete the hearing in between 2507-2022 till 27-07-2022. d] The Education Officer would then pass an order on or before 05-08-2022 and communicate the same to the parties.

e] Needless to state, that the pension will be paid accordingly.

(4) 5.

In the event, the employee has any grievance, he is at liberty to avail of a remedy for the redressal of his grievance, as is permissible in law. Needless to state that the Education Officer would also decide the issue of interest.

[ANIL L. PANSARE, J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.] VishalK/cp270.22