Bombay High CourtWP/9442/2016disposed offdismissed for default

Khanderao Daulat Bhagwat v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2017-03-07Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sangitrao S. Patil,Hon'Ble Shri Justice T.V. Nalawade3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9442 OF 2016 Khanderao Daulat Bhagwat Age: 55 Yrs., occu. Service, R/o Mahatma Phule Chowk, At Post Ner, Tq. And Dist. Dhule.

- PETITIONER

VERSUS

1) The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2) The Director of Educational (Higher & Secondary Education) Directorate of Educational Maharashtra State, Pune-4.

3) The Deputy Director of Education, Nasik region, Near Revenue Commissioner Office, Nasik.

4) The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Dhule, Dist. Dhule.

5) Krantijyoti Savitribai Phule Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, Vidyanagari, Deopur, Dhule.

Through its President.

6) Smt.Dhanabai Kautik Khalane Kanya High School and Smt. Yedibai Kasiram Mali Kanya Junior College, Ner, Tq. And Dist. Dhule, through its Head Master.

- RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.NL Choudhary, Advocate for Petitioner/s Mr.AR Kale, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

-----

CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE & SANGITRAO S.PATIL,JJ.

DATE : 7 th MARCH,2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER:- T.V.NALAWADE,J.) 1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both sides for final disposal. 2) The petition is filed for giving directions to respondent No.2 - Director of Education to make an order for payment of arrears of salary amount for the period starting from 2005. It is informed that the petitioner is still in service and the arrears of salary are not paid to him after fixation of his pay and after giving benefit of first ACP.

3) It appears that the petitioner had filed an application and after processing the same, the Deputy Director of Education had made a communication to the Director of Education in the year 2005 itself and had informed that the power is with the Director of Education. In spite of this communication and processing of the matter, no decision is taken by Respondent No.2.

4) In view of this circumstance, according to us, directions need to be given to Respondent No.2 to take decision on the claim of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 is directed to take decision on the claim of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.

5) With aforesaid directions, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.

(SANGITRAO S.PATIL) (T.V.NALAWADE) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/