Bombay High Court
Ku. Amruta D/O Madhav Gokhale vs State Of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., And 3 Ors on 13 June, 2023
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
1 210-WP-5780-2010.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5780 OF 2010
(Ku. Amruta d/o Madhav Gokhale Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3541 OF 2009
(Shilpa d/o Raghunath Salve Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order
and Registrar's orders.
WP 5780/2010
Shri S.Y. Deopujari, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms N.P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2/ State.
Shri S.S. Ghate, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
WP 3541/2009
Ms S.S. Jachak, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms N.P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1/ State.
Shri S.S. Ghate, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Shri S.Y. Deopujari, Advocate for respondent No.5.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 13, 2023 Heard.
2] In Writ Petition No. 5780/2010, the petitioner came to be appointed as full time Lecturer in Psychology pursuant to an advertisement dated 5/6/2008. Her appointment at respondent No.4 College run by respondent No.3 Society was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3541/2009. Since the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5780/2010 was not being paid her salary in view of the communications dated 10/6/2010 and 27/8/2010 issued by the Joint Director of Higher Education, this Writ Petition came to be filed. 3] While admitting Writ Petition No. 5780/2010, this Court passed an interim order in the light of the judgment in Sudhir s/o Sharadrao Hunge and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others [2010(4) Mh.L.J. 572] and directed the Management to pay salary to the petitioner. It is informed that the appointment of the petitioner has been duly approved by the University on 29/5/2009.
4] Shri S.Y. Deopujari, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is now regularly receiving salary which fact is not disputed by Shri S.S. Ghate, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2023 12:47:35 :::2 210-WP-5780-2010.odt 5] Insofar as Writ Petition No. 3541/2009 is concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that she has not received any instructions from the petitioner. It appears that with passage of time, the petitioner has lost interest in the present proceedings.
6] Since the appointment of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5780/2010 has now been duly approved and the petitioner is receiving her regular salary, her grievance does not survive. In the light of the decision in Sudhir s/o Sharadrao Hunge and another (supra), the impugned communications dated 10/6/2010 and 27/8/2010 now do not survive. They are accordingly quashed and set aside. The petitioner is entitled to continue in service as earlier. 7] Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. Rule accordingly. No costs.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.) SUMIT ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2023 12:47:35 :::