Kailas Bansilal Chaudhari v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

2023:BHC-AUG:25938-DB (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15340 OF 2022 IN/WITH REVIEW APPLICATION (ST.) NO.23055 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7301 OF 2022 KAILAS BANSILAL CHAUDHARI

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ....

Mr S. R. Patil, Advocate for Applicant;

Mr P. K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondents/State Mr U. R. Avate, Advocate h/f Talekar & Associates for Respondent Nos.5 & 6 CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND ARUN R. PEDNEKER, JJ.

DATE : 7th December, 2023 PER COURT:

1.

By Civil Application No.15340/2022, the Applicant prays for condonation of delay caused in preferring the Review Application. For the reasons set out and since the delay is of only three days, the same is condoned. This Civil Application is allowed.

(2) 2.

We have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides on the Review Application.

3.

We have perused the grounds raised by the Review Applicant and the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in St. Mary's Education Society and another Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and others, [(2013) 4 SCC 498]. 4.

Vide our order dated 27/07/2022, passed in Writ Petition No.7301/2022, we have directed the Deputy Director of Education, Nashik, to look into the claim of the Review Applicant/Petitioner as to whether there is any error in payment of salary to him by the private management, which is the 'no grantin-aid' education Society. Instead of initiating a roving enquiry to assess the quantum of unpaid salary and the reasons as to why the salary is not paid, we directed the Deputy Director of Education to initiate a procedure, by which the Petitioner as well as the Management would be heard and quantify the unpaid salary amounts.

5.

We do not find that this Court has committed any error in passing the said order. The Petitioner has failed to make

(3) out a case of an error or mistake apparent on the face of the record.

6.

In view of the above, this Review Application is dismissed.

(ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) sjk