The Education Officer Primary (Primary) Z.P. Latur v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Principle Secretary And Others
2024:BHC-AUG:16329-DB 1 ca 6770.24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6770 OF 2024 IN REVIEW APPLICATION STAMP NO. 15535 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7876 OF 2023 WITH REVIEW APPLICATION STAMP NO. 15535 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7876 OF 2023 The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri U. B. Bondar, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri R. S. Wani, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 31 JULY, 2024.
FINAL ORDER :
.
Heard the applicant/Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur who was the respondent No. 5 in the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 5 herein/Management is seeking review of our order, whereby, we had disposed of the writ petition on 20 October 2023.
2.
The issue was regarding direction by the present applicant
2 ca 6770.24 to the management to process the salary bills of the teaching staff including one Mr. S. S. Waghmare. It was noticed that a similar direction already issued by the Education Officer on 01 December 2021 was challenged by the management before the Director of Education (Primary). The Director had expressly called upon Divisional Deputy Director of Education to examine the claim of Mr. Waghmare in respect of salary for a specific period independently. Even before that could happen, the communication dated 20.06.2023 was issued by the present applicant, which was under challenge. Obviously, since earlier similar direction was considered by the Director, who had directed an independent enquiry to happen, still the applicant had issued impugned communication again calling upon the management to process the salary bills including that of Mr. Waghmare. We had, therefore, set aside that communication. 3.
Learned advocate for the applicant submits that pursuant to the directions of Director of Education dated 19 April 2023, the applicant had again issued communication dated 07 November 2023 to the management and the Head Master calling upon them to process the salary bills including that of Mr. Waghmare and by referring to the communication which we had set aside dated 20.06.2023.
4.
No formal defect or error apparent on the face of record has been pointed out, nor is there any other sufficient cause for undertaking the review. Even the order passed by the applicant
3 ca 6770.24 is dated 07 November 2023, that is after this Court had set aside similar communication dated 20.06.2023. The very conduct of the applicant in issuing such subsequent communication in flagrant violation of our order is bordering contempt. 5.
There is no substance in the review application. The review application together with civil application seeking condonation of delay are rejected.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ] bsb/July 24