← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/12397/2016disposed offdismissed for default

Shaikh Mohamad Shaikh Babusab And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2017-02-22Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sangitrao S. Patil,Hon'Ble Shri Justice T.V. Nalawade3 pages

1 53-WP-12397-16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.12397 OF 2016

1. Shaikh Mohamad Shaikh Babusab, Age : 38 years, Occ. Service, r/o. Mohd. Zakir Hussain, Urdu Secondary and Higher Secondary School, Mukhed, Dist. Nanded

2. Syeda Rabbani S. Jilani, Age : 50 years, Occ. Service, r/o. As above

3. Mohamad Kalim Mohd. Khaja, Age : 42 years, Occ. Service, r/o. As above

4. Shama Begum Shaikh Babu, Age : 36 years, Occ. Service, r/o. As above

5. Shaikh Dastgir Yadulsab, Age : 46 years, Occ. Service, r/o. As above

6. Shaikh Rashid Munwarsab, Age : 52 years, Occ. Service, r/o. As above

7. Shaikh Mahebooba Kashimsab, Age : 48 years, Occ. Service, r/o. As above ..Petitioners Vs.

2 53-WP-12397-16.odt

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Manatalaya, Mumbai - 32 and others ..Respondents -- Mr.G.J.Karne, Advocate for petitioners Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4 Mr.G.R.Jadhav, Advocate for respondent no.5 -- CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : FEBRUARY 22, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT :

Rule, made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, heard finally.

2.

This petition is filed for direction to the respondents to decide the representations made by the petitioners on 14.06.2010, 25.11.2016, 31.12.2008 and 16.07.2016.

3.

It appears that the school, wherein the petitioners were serving, was de-recognised from the year 2003 and again, the recognition was

3 53-WP-12397-16.odt restored in the year 2008. It is the grievance of the petitioners that from the year 2006 to 2008, they were entitled to get salary, back wages and fixation of their pay as per the 6th Pay Commission.

4.

Though in the representations, it was not specifically mentioned about these things, it was mentioned that the petitioners have not been paid salary since 2006.

5.

The respondents are, therefore, expected to take decision in respect of the entitlement of the petitioners to get salary etc., within a period of three months from today in accordance with the provisions of law.

6.

Rule made absolute accordingly. The petition stands disposed of.

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] kbp