Durgadas Shamrao Parvekar v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7868 OF 2023 Durgadas s/o. Shamrao Parvekar ...
PETITIONER
VERSUS
1.
The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2.
The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
3.
The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya Mumbai 400 032.
4.
The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.400 032.
5.
The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
6.
The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.
7.
The Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.
...
RESPONDENTS ...
Advocate for the petitioner : Ms. Megha Mali h/f. Mr. S.K. Mathpati AGP for respondent / State : Mr. S.G. Sangle Advocate for respondent Nos.6 and 7 : Mr. S.R. Yadav ...
CORAM
: MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.J.
DATE : 10.07.2023 1/3
PER COURT :
Heard the learned advocate Ms. Megha Mali holding for Mr. S.K. Mathpati for the petitioner, the learned AGP and the learned advocate Mr. S.R. Yadav for the Zilla Parishad.
2.
The petitioner who is a district awardee teacher having the requisite certificate was granted the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 12.12.2000. It is now being alleged that referring to the Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017 the benefit conferred upon the petitioner is not being actually released.
3.
The petitioner submits that since the date of order, it was never given effect to and the petitioner stands superannuated and is awaiting benefit. Even the representation made to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani on 28.07.2020 has not been considered. 4.
We dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent No.7 to take appropriate decision on the petitioner's representation and grant the relief conferred upon him. He shall bear in mind that in spite of subsequent Government Resolutions dated 24.08.2017 and 04.09.2018, this Court in several matters has considered the scope of Government Resolutions in the light of the decision in the matter of Santosh Narayan Sannanse and Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.; in Writ Petition No.222/2003 and connected writ petitions decided on 13.04.2023 as also the order passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of the Chief Executive Officer Nasik Zilla Parishad, Nasik and Anr. Vs. Nitin Dattatray Pawar and Ors.; dated 13.04.2022.
2/3
5.
The writ petition is allowed. The Respondent No.6 - The Chief Executive Officer shall now consider and decide the representation as expeditiously as possible and in any case within four weeks. (SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) habeeb 3/3