← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/151/2017disposed offdismissed for default

Pandurang Satish Jadhav v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2018-05-02Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Arun M. Dhavale3 pages

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 151 OF 2017 PANDURANG SATISH JADHAV ...PETITIONER

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

...RESPONDENTS Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for Petitioner Mr.A.V.Deshmukh, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. V.J. Dhage and Mr. D A Karnik for Respondent No. 3 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND A.M.DHAVALE, JJ.

DATE: MAY 02, 2018 PER COURT :

1.

The petitioner claims the salary for the period 01.05.2011 to 01.04.2014.

2.

We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

3.

According to the petitioner, the petitioner is not paid salary from 01.05.2011 to 01.04.2014. He was working as Peon with the respondent/Institution. The respondents have come with the case that the petitioner had earlier filed writ petition bearing No. 9128 of 2015. In that writ petition, the petitioner had admitted that he has received salary for the

(2) period 01.05.2011 to 01.04.2014. The petitioner in the present writ petition has given explanation to the same stating that it was inadvertent mistake because of communication gap. The respondents relied on the letter dated 01.02.2014, allegedly issued by the petitioner to the Head Master. The petitioner denies the said letter and states that the same is forged one.

4.

The matter involves the disputed questions of facts. It would not be within the purview of writ jurisdiction of this court to enter into the disputed questions of facts and investigate the matter.

5.

The petitioner, if so advised, may approach the Education Officer with regard to his salary for the period as claimed in the petition. If such application is made, the Education Officer after hearing the petitioner and the respondent/Management shall take decision on its own merits with regard to the disputed period.

6.

The petitioner and the respondents are at liberty to place the documents before the Education Officer on which they intend to rely.

(3) 7.

The same be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of application.

8.

The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

(A.M. DHAVALE, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) mta