1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1663 OF 2009 Ashok Pavlas Jadhav, Age-45 years, Occu-Service, As Primary Teacher, R/o.Mahatma Phule Nagar, Gangapur Taluka Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. 4. The Education Officer, (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. 5. Shri.Vyankat Netke, Age-60 years, Ex.Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. At present residing at Emrold City, (Row House), Garkheda Parisar, Shivaji Nagar, Aurangabad. 6. Shri.H.G.Gavane, Age-55 years, Occu-Service, Extension Officer, (Education) 2 Zilla Parishad, Beed, At Present C/o.Panchayat Samiti, Beed, Tq. And Dist. Beed RESPONDENTS Mr.V.G.Salgare, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr.V.H.Dighe, learned AGP for respondent no.1 and 2 Mr.S.G.Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel for respondent no.6 Mrs.Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, learned counsel for respondent no.3 to 5 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 31/07/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. We have heard Shri.Salgare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP Shri.Dighe on behalf of respondent no.1 and 2, and Mrs.Kalpalata Bharaswadkar, learned counsel on behalf of respondent no.3 to 5. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for directing respondents to forthwith pay suspension allowance to the petitioner from the date of his suspension till he is re-instated in service. The petitioner also prays that respondent no.2 and 3 be restrained from making repeated inquiries in respect of the same charges. The petitioner also prays for 3 costs/damages to be awarded for un-necessary harassment of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset states that the petitioner has been re-instated in service, but his subsistence allowance has not been paid. We therefore allow this petition to this extent by directing the respondents to determine the entitlement of the petitioner for payment of subsistence allowance and if the respondents find that the petitioner is entitle to be paid the subsistence allowance and has not been paid, the same be paid to the petitioner within 4 weeks from today. In the event, the respondents find that the petitioner is not entitled for payment of subsistence allowance, necessary orders to that effect also be passed within 4 weeks from today to unable the petitioner to avail the remedies available to him in Law for challenging the aforesaid orders. In respect of prayer clause “B” and “C”, the petitioner is not entitled to the writ as he prayed for. 5. This petition is thus allowed to the extent indicated above and rule is made absolute on the above terms with no orders as costs. All contentions which are not decided are kept open for the parties to litigate between themselves. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/JULY 2009/wp1663-09