1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4846 OF 1997 Prabhakar S/o Nivruttirao Gutte Age : 30 Yrs., Occ. Teacher R/o : Vagdariwadi, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Govt. Pleader High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. 2. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur. 3. Maharashtra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal’s Rajmata Jijamata Uchcha Prathmik Vidya Mandir, Latur Through its Secretary. 4. Maharashtra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal’s Rajmata Jijamata Uchcha Prathmik Vidya Mandir, Latur Through its Head Master. 5. Pragati Dnyan Prasarak Mandal’s (Latur), Nutan Prathmik Vidya Mandir, Latur, Patel Chowk, Latur, 2 Through its Secretary. 6. Pragati Dnyan Prasarak Mandal’s (Latur) Nutan Prathmik Vidya Mandir, Latur, Patel Chowk, Latur, Through its Head Master. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. R.T.Nagargoje, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.B.Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. V.G.Sakolkar, Advocate for respondent no. 3 & 4. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 30/6/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER – B.R.GAVAI, J. ] 1. The petitioner has initially filed the present petition only for direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to join duties. However, in view of subsequent development, since the petitioner has joined his service as Assistant Teacher in Zilla Parishad, Beed by order dated 4/8/1998, the said grievance no more survives and the claim of the present petitioner is only restricted to the payment of salary. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Rajmata Jijamata Vidya Mandir – respondent no. 4 vide order dated 12/6/1989. It appears that on reduction of strength of students in respondent no. 3, the 3 petitioner was declared as surplus and accordingly directed by respondent no. 2 to be absorbed in respondent no. 5. Though respondent no. 2 had directed respondent no. 5 to permit the petitioner to resume his duties and absorb him, respondent no. 5 did not respond . As such, representations were submitted by the petitioner. The representations also went un-heard, hence the present petition. 3. From the perusal of the order dated 12/7/1996, which is annexure ‘ K ’ to the petition, it may be seen that the Education Officer i.e. respondent no. 2 has specifically directed respondent no. 5 to absorb the petitioner in service, wherein the order of absorption has been issued by respondent no. 5 was gone to comply with the same. The school of respondent no. 5 is availing grant from the authorities of the State Govt. 4. However, since the petitioner has now been selected in Zilla Parishad school, Beed and had also joined w.e.f. 4/8/1998, the question of reinstatement of the petitioner does not survive. The only question that remains is regarding unpaid salary of the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for respondent no. 4 i.e. the school, wherein the petitioner was earlier working, makes categorical statement that the petitioner’s pay bills from 26/6/1995 to 15/7/1996 have already 4 been submitted to respondent no. 2 for making necessary compliance. Since the school is grant-in-aid school, respondent no. 2, the Education Officer was bound to make the payment till the date of absorption of the petitioner in some other school. In so far as the salary for the remaining period is concerned, i.e. the date on which the petitioner is declared surplus and directing respondent no. 5 to absorb is concerned,till the date on which the petitioner had joined in Zilla Parishad, Beed we find that the salary would be required to be paid by respondent no. 5 in as much as it has failed to obey the order issued to it by respondent no. 2. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed in following terms ( i ) Respondent nos. 3 and 4 shall submit fresh bills to respondent no. 2 for the salary to be payable to the petitioner from 26/6/1995 to 15/7/1996. Respondent no. 2 shall do the necessary within the period of 12 weeks from the receipt of said bills. ( ii ) Salary for the period from 12/7/1996 i.e. the date on which the petitioner was directed to be absorbed in respondent no. 5 till 4/8/1998 shall be paid by respondent no. 5. The said payment shall be made within the period of 6 months from today. 7. It is made clear that in case respondent no. 5 fails to make the payment to the petitioner, respondent no. 2 shall make the payment to the 5 petitioner and deduct the amount from the non salary grants as are admissible to respondent no. 5. 8. In that view of the matter, Rule is made absolute on above terms with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 4846.97