Nat. Women Wl. So. Hajrat Abu Bakar Siddique Urdu Hi. School Thr. Exe. Pre. A. R. Khan Akbar Khan v. State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Dept. Of School Education And Sports, Mumbai And Others

1/4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.

OF PETITIONER :- National Women Welfare Society's Hajarat Abu Bakar Siddique Urdu High School, Manbha, Tq-Karanja Lad, Dist.- Washim, Through its Executive President, Ataur Raheman Khan Akbar Khan, aged 61 years, Occ. Agriculturist, R/o Khatikpura, Darwha, Dist. Yavatmal.

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENTS :-

1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department School Education and Sports, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2. The Director of Education, Secondary and Higher Secondary, Maharashtra State, Pune.

3. The Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Region, Amravati.

4. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Washim.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Mohd. Ateeque, counsel for petitioner.

Mrs.Ketki Joshi, GP for the respondents.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

DATE : 15.12 .20 .

2/4 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per :Sunil B.Shukre, J.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader, who appears by waiving notice for the respondents.

2.

Considering the short point involved in this petition, we have decided to take up the petition for final disposal. 3.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4.

The grievance of the petitioner-Society is that the respondents are not deciding the proposal of the petitioner to release hundred per cent salary grants to the petitioner-Society though, the petitioner-Society is eligible as per the government resolutions issued by respondent No.1 from time to time. It is also the submission of the petitioner-Society that there is one proposal, which was sent to respondent No.1 way back in the year 2014 in this regard, but the proposal has not been decided till date.

3/4 5.

Considering such nature of grievance, we are of the view that purposes of this petition shall stand served if appropriate directions are issued to the respondents.

6.

Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. We grant liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh proposal based upon the proposal dated 3rd January, 2014 seeking hundred per cent salary grants and send it to respondent Nos.1 and 2 within two weeks from the date of the order and if such proposal is received by respondent Nos.1 and 2 within two weeks from the date of the order, same shall be appropriately considered and decided by them, in accordance with law as early as possible and in any case within three months from the date of receipt of the proposal. 7.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.

(ANIL L. PANSARE, J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J)

4/4 Signed By:GHANSHYAM S KHUNTE