13.wp.35-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.35 OF 2010 Shri. Prashant Pundalik Sale. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. ... Mr.A.M. Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.C.R. Sonawane, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. ... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 02, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for both the sides. On a motion made by the learned Counsel of the petitioner, names of respondent Nos.4 & 5 are permitted to be deleted. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. The petitioner by this Petition makes grievance in relation to the communication dated 9.9.2009 sent to the 13.wp.35-10 2 Headmaster of the School in which the petitioner is working by respondent No.2. By that communication respondent No.2 has directed that the salary payable to the petitioner be withheld till the decision on the staffing pattern in the school is taken. 4. Admitted position is that, the petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher in a Ashram School called Shree Sant Chokoba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Hunur District - Solapur. Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in this Court wherein he has also admitted that the petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher. She has further stated that by order dated 7/8 th June, 2004 the salary of the petitioner was fixed in the scale of Rs.5500-9000 and the petitioner was accordingly paid in that scale. Respondent No.2 has stated that when the proposal was submitted by the Headmaster for staffing pattern for the academic year 2007-2008 in the proposal the Headmaster has shown that the petitioner is entitled to salary in the scale of Rs. 4500-7000 and that enquiry into that proposal is being 13.wp.35-10 3 made. 5. In our opinion, even if whatever is stated by respondent No. 2 in her affidavit-in-reply is taken to be true, then also there can be no justification for withholding the salary of the petitioner pending enquiry into the staffing pattern. Respondent No.2 could have directed that till the enquiry is completed the petitioner should be continued to be paid in the same scale in which he was being paid for the previous academic year. In our opinion, there was absolutely no justification for not paying salary to the petitioner who is admittedly working in the school. In our opinion, therefore, the following order would meet the ends of justice : :: O R D E R :: [A] The communication dated 9.9.2009 is set aside. Respondents are directed to release the salary grant for payment of salary to the petitioner in the same scale in which the petitioner was being paid before the order dated 9.9.2009 was issued. This payment of 13.wp.35-10 4 course will be subject to the ultimate decision that the respondent No.2 may take on the staffing pattern of the school. [B] Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)