Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Ganesh Chandusingh Chavhan vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 4 February, 2019

Author: Sunil B. Shukre

Bench: Sunil B. Shukre, S.M. Modak

   wp3692.18                                                                   1



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH

                    WRIT PETITION NO. 3692 OF 2018


  Ganesh Chandusingh Chavhan,
  aged about 51 years, occupation
  Service, r/o Palodi, Tq. Manora,
  District - Washim.                          ... PETITIONER

                    Versus

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

  2. Zilla Parishad, Washim,
     through its Chief Executive
     Officer.

  3. The Education Officer
     (Middle School), Zilla Parishad,
     Washim.

  4. Vasantrao Naik Madhyamik Va
     Uccha Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
     Palidi, Tq. Manora, District -
     Washim, thr. its President.

  5. Vasantrao Naik Madhyamik Va
     Uccha Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
     Palidi, Tq. Manora, District -
     Washim, thr. its Head Master.            ... RESPONDENTS


  Ms. Sapana S. Jadhav, Advocate for the petitioner.
  Shri A.M. Balpande, APP for respondent No. 1.
  Shri R.S. Kurekar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 7 3.
  Shri V.K. Paliwal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 & 5.
                      .....




::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019                ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 22:33:15 :::
    wp3692.18                                                                     2



                               CORAM :   SUNIL B. SHUKRE &
                                         S.M. MODAK, JJ.
                                         FEBRUARY 04, 2019.


  ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Ms. Sapana S. Jadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri A.M. Balpande, APP for respondent No. 1, Shri R.S. Kurekar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and Shri V.K. Paliwal, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 & 5.

2. There is no dispute about the fact so far as Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are concerned that the salary bills are already submitted to respondent No. 3 - Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Washim. When these respondents make such a submission, we have no reason to discard the same. Therefore, accepting this submission, we also find that this petition could be disposed of by issuing necessary directions to respondent No. 3.

3. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Respondent ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 22:33:15 ::: wp3692.18 3 No. 3 is directed to take appropriate decision on the salary bills already submitted to him, within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. Rule is made absolute in above terms. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

           JUDGE                                             JUDGE
                                      ******

  *GS.




::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019              ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 22:33:15 :::