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

Jai Tuljabhavani Ashram School, ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through Is ... on 19 March, 2021

Author: C. V. Bhadang

Bench: Nitin Jamdar, C. V. Bhadang

                                                     18-wpst-1948-2021




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.1948 OF 2021

Jai Tuljabhavani Ashram School
Through Its Headmistress
Kum.Gavli J. Shankarrao                               ...Petitioner
        V/s.
State of Maharashtra
Through Its Principal Secretary & Ors.                ...Respondents
                               ----
Mr.J.G. Reddy (Aradwad) for the Petitioner.
Mrs.S.S. Bhende, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                  ----
                              CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND
                                       C. V. BHADANG, JJ.

DATE : 19 March 2021 P.C. . This Petition is filed by Headmistress of Ashram School challenging a direction dated 5 January 2021 issued by the Respondent-Director (OBC), Welfare Department. By this order, which is passed in an Appeal of the Petitioner, an enquiry Committee has been constituted.

2. The Petitioner filed the appeal being aggrieved by an order dated 18 November 2020 passed by the Regional Deputy Director, Social Welfare Department, Pune. By this order the N.S. Kamble page 1 of 2 18-wpst-1948-2021 Regional Deputy Director opined that even though the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have not signed the Muster Roll, they had attend the work as can be seen from the material and directed to release their salary. It is further directed that if it is not so released the salary of the Petitioner be stopped.

2. The Petitioner has not joined the Management which runs this Ashram School. The Petitioner is also one of the employee of the Management. As regards Petitioners apprehension that the Petitioner will be held accountable is concerned, we do not see how it can arise if the Petitioner complies with order issued by the Regional Deputy Director. Therefore, at the instance of the Management not challenging the order to release the salary, we do not see any reason to exercise the writ jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is rejected.





                             (C. V. BHADANG, J.)                        (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
         Digitally signed
Nilam    by Nilam Kamble

Kamble   Date: 2021.03.23
         12:57:20 +0530




                            N.S. Kamble                                         page 2 of 2