1 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN ITS CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5184 OF 2009 Shri Rajesh Balkrishna Bhalerao ..Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Lakhwinder Kaur & Ors. ..Respondents Shri S.V.Pitre for the Petitioner Shri. S.S.Bhende AGP for Respondent State Shri R. Mirchandani i/b M/s. Paras Kuhad & Asso. for Respondent No.1 Shri M.S.Topkar for Respondent No.2 Coram: P.B.MAJMUDAR AND R.M. SAVANT, JJ. 22nd June, 2010 P.C. 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner inter alia seeks a relief that he should be given the B.Ed scale. The Petitioner having not been given the 2 said scale, has, therefore, vide prayer (b) sought a direction against the Respondent No.4 management to initiate suitable action against the Respondent No.4 for her inaction in submitting the proposal for the revised pay scale. The Petitioner holds the qualification of A.T.D & G.D. Art and is working in the school run by the Respondent No.4 management as a Drawing Teacher. The Petitioner claim for the said B.Ed scale is based on the Government Resolution dated 6-9-2009. It appears that the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla parishad) Pune was pleased to inform the Respondent NO.4 management that the Petitioner is entitled to the B.Ed scale i.e. Rs.5000-9000 w.e.f. 6-9-1999 and by the said communication the management was further informed that the said scale may be implemented and the pay bill of the Petitioner may be sent as per the B.Ed scale. It appears that on receipt of the said letter, the Respondent No.1 who is the Head Mistress, addressed a letter dated 22-5-2009. Prior 3 to the said letter, there is a communication addressed to the Respondent No.4 management by the Education Officer for implementation of the order issued by the Education Officer in the year 1999. The action in terms of the said directions have not been taken as a consequence of which, the department had to take action of cancellation of one post. It is in the said factual backdrop that the above Petition has been filed and the reliefs as re-produced herein above have been claimed. 3. In the above Petition, an affidavit has now been filed by one Ms Vidya Shinde, Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Pune, which affidavit is dated 18-6-2010. In the said affidavit, it is inter alia averred that in terms of the G.R. Dated 6-9-1999, issued by the School Education and Sports Department, the Petitioner having the educational qualification of A.T.D & G.D Art is entitled for B.Ed scale. It is further averred that in view of the fact that the strength 4 of the students is as contemplated in the circular dated 7-9-1985, the Petitioner can be designated as a special teacher and entitled for the B.Ed scale. It has also been averred in the said affidavit that pursuant to the proposal received from the management, the Education officer vide letter dated 7-12-2007 has granted the approval for the Petitioner being given the said B.Ed. Scale w.e.f. 6-9-1999. What, therefore, can be crystalised from the said affidavit is that the Petitioner is to be treated as a special teacher on account of his having qualification of A.T.D & G.D. Art and is entitled to the B.Ed scale w.e.f. 6-9-1999. 4. It is disturbing to note that inspite of the directions of the Education Officer, the Respondent No.4 management has not complied with the same. The non implementation of the direction of giving the Petitioner the B.Ed scale is on the specious ground that queries were raised by the management as regards, whether the approval is granted to the 5 post held by the Petitioner. A reliance is sought to be placed on a letter dated 17-3-2009 to buttress the said case of the Respondent No.4 management. However, if one looks at the correspondence in the form of replies that the Petitioner has received from the Respondent No.4 management, it cannot be said that it is only for the aforesaid reason that the Respondent No.4 management was not implementing the directions of the Education officer. In fact, one of the letters addressed to the Petitioner dated 19-3-2009, which is by the Secretary of the Respondent No.4 management, the Petitioner was warned not to approach outsiders and civilian organizations as otherwise suitable disciplinary action would be taken and an adverse remark in the Annual Dossier & Performance Report would be made. By a letter prior to the said letter dated 19-3-2009 i.e. letter dated 17-3-2009, when the Petitioner sought to raise the issue of being paid at the B.Ed scale, 6 the Petitioner was directed vide the said letter to approach the Education Authorities since it is a technical issue and not an administrative matter. This was notwithstanding the fact that already directions had been issued by the Education Officer in the year 2007 for the Petitioner to be paid at the B.Ed scale. We, therefore, deprecate the conduct of the management in the matter of not implementing the directions of the Education Officer which were given as long back in the year 2007. Whilst we are of the view that the reasons put forward by the Respondent No.4 management for not implementing the said directions of the Education officer, do not appear to be bonafide. Whilst expressing our displeasure at the manner in which the Respondent No.4 management has conducted itself, we leave the matter at that, with the hope that the management would make amends. However, in the teeth of the Affidavit filed by the Education Officer Ms Vidya Shinde, we had asked the Learned 7 Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 management as to what the Respondent No.4 management is proposing to do in the matter. It is submitted by Shri Topkar the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 that the revised bills in respect of the Petitioner incorporating the B.Ed scale, to which the Petitioner is held to be entitled from the year 1999 would be submitted by the Management to the authorities within a period of 4 weeks from date. We accept the statement made on behalf of the Respondent No.4 Management and dispose of the Petition on the said basis. 5. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)