Ku. Sudarshani D/O Damduji Thul, Now Sudarshani W/O Dnyaneshwar Taksande v. The Presideing Officer, Additional School Tribual Nagpur, And Others
5 cao 2024-2018.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO. 2024 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPLICATION (W) NO. 1395 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1347 OF 2001(D) Ku. Sudarshani D/o Damduji Thul now Sudarshani w/o Dnyaneshwar Taksande ...Versus...
The Presideing Officer, Additional School Tribunal Nagpur and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- Shri S.W. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for respondent No.1 CORAM : N.B.SURYAWANSHI, J.
DATE : 18/08/2021 This application seeks recall of the order dated 12/09/2017 in CAW 1395/2015 in WP No. 1347/2001 claiming that the date mentioned in para 11 as 01/03/1999 be replaced either by 01/07/1995 or by 01/02/1997 to meet the ends of justice. The petitioner was appointed on the post of headmistress on 21/01/1997 and she was reverted on the post of Assistant Teacher with effect from 01/03/1999. The School Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner. This Court has allowed the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 12/09/2017 wherein, according to the
5 cao 2024-2018.odt petitioner, the date of her reversion is mentioned and the petitioner was directed to be paid the salary of the post of headmistress with effect from 01/03/1999 which, according to the petitioner, should be from 1997, when she was appointed on the post.
The learned Advocate for the respondent has filed reply and has stated that the petitioner was already paid the salary of headmistress from the date of her appointment till the date of her reversion and at no point of time any grievance was made by the petitioner either before the School Tribunal or before this Court that she was not paid the salary of that period.
The application is misconceived and therefore I find no reason to entertain the application. It further appears that it is based on incorrect instructions given to the learned Advocate. The application is therefore dismissed. JUDGE J.Pethe