Surekha Ravji Durpade And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 927 WRIT PETITION NO.8067 OF 2020 SUREKHA RAVJI DURPADE AND OTHERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Baliram B Shinde AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar Advocate for Respondent No.4 & 5 : Mr. G.A. Gadhe ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & S.G. MEHARE, J.J.

DATED : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2021 PER COURT:- 1.

In this petition, petitioner nos.1 and 2 claimed to be employees as Assistant Teachers with petitioner no.3 - Education Society. The employees claimed to be permanent in the service of petitioner no.3. The grievance is that the Education Ofcer is not releasing grants for payment of salary of petitioner nos.1 and 2. It is the further grievance of the petitioners that salary grants are released to pay the salary of respondent nos.4 and 5.

2.

We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective sides for quite sometime. We fnd from the afdavit in reply fled by Shri Madhav Sakharam Salgar, Education Ofcer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, that respondent nos. 4 and 5 are permanent employees and are senior to petitioner nos.1 and 2. Their dates of appointment are also mentioned which evidence this fact. The 1/3

salary grants are admissible only for two posts as they are sanctioned posts. Petitioner nos.1 and 2 are below the two teachers who are occupying permanent sanctioned posts.

3.

The learned advocate representing respondent nos.4 and 5 submits that petitioner no.3 - Education Trust has been deregistered due to mismanagement under the orders of the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner on 23.01.2018. By the amended provision Section 22-A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, it would be the Assistant Charity Commissioner or the Deputy Charity Commissioner who would be administering the trust. Despite this fact, petitioner no.3 society is before this Court through it's Secretary Shri Gopalkrushna Govindrao More, who is not authorized to fle this petition considering the deregistration of the trust.

4.

In view of the above, though petitioner no.3 can be said to be not authorized to fle this petition, this petition is maintainable to the extent of petitioner nos.1 and 2. The afdavit in support of the petition is sworn by petitioner no.1.

5.

It is thus apparent that the Education Ofcer has rightly released the salaries of respondent nos.4 and 5, who are permanent employees and are occupying the posts which have grants in aid. These are two sanctioned posts. As the management of the trust desires to continue petitioner nos.1 and 2, though there are no grants, the burden of paying the salary to these two petitioners would rest on 2/3

the shoulders of the management which will have to pay the salary from its cofers.

6.

In view of the above, this petition, being devoid of merits, is therefore dismissed.

(S.G. MEHARE. J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) Mujaheed// 3/3