Mrs Usha Nandkumar Ratolikar v. State Of Mah And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8415 OF 2005 Mrs. Usha w/o Nandkumar Ratolikar, Age 51 years, Occu: Service, R/o C/o Advocate N.M. Ratolikar, Holi, Nanded, Taluka & District Nanded ... Petitioner

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra Through the Principal Secretary, Department of General Education M.S. Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.

The Secretary, General Education Department, M.S.Mantralaya, Mumbai 3.

The Director of Education, M.S. Pune ... Respondents

4. The Principal, District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Nanded 5.

Amol s/o Keshavrao Nilekar Age 33 years, Occu: Service, Opp. Ambika Mangal Karyalaya, Near Waman Nagar, Nanded (Intervener) 6.

Vivekvardhini B.Ed. College, MIDC Area, Opp. Corporation Swimming Pool, Nandedd Taluka & District Nanded Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. M M. Nerlikar, AGP for the respondents State Mr. M.M. Joshi, Advocate for R/5 Intervenor Mr. A.S. Bayas, Advocate for respondent No.6 1/4

CORAM

:

T.V. NALAWADE & K.L. WADANE, JJ.

DATE : 7th March, 2018 JUDGMENT:

1.

Both sides are heard. This court has gone through the various orders made by this court like orders dated 10.12.2008 and 15.01.2010.

2.

Submissions made and the orders show that the petitioner was not appointed by following proper procedure and the procedure like selecting candidates through MPSC was not followed. She was sent on deputation basis but her services could not have been regularized as for that post the procedure is prescribed for selection of candidates through MPSC. 3.

The submissions made show that subsequently a candidate selected through MPSC became available and then this Court made subsequent order in 15th January, 2010 expressing that the petitioner has no vested right to continue on the said post and therefore she was rightly relieved by the respondents from the said post. This decision was taken to the Supreme Court in SLP but the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP. It appears that the petitioner raised other grievances that she 2/4

was not paid salary as per the revised pay scale which was proposed by the 6th Pay Commission. Submissions made however show that she was paid amount an amount of Rs.2,31,296/- towards arrears of salary. Now it is the grievance of the petitioner that this amount is not properly calculated. Today one more submission was made that this amount is not properly calculated and as per the calculation made by the petitioner she is entitled to get leave encashment of Rs.2 lakhs for 239 days.

4.

In view of the reliefs which are claimed in the present petition, it can be said that the other grievances of the petitioner now cannot be considered in the present proceeding. Liberty to the petitioner to make proper representation to that effect to respondents and the respondents can take decision on the said representation.

5.

With the aforesaid observation,the writ petition is dismissed. Pending civil application disposed of. 6.

Rule discharged.

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) 3/4

JPC 4/4