1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5569 OF 2006 Bhagwan s/o. Kundlikrao Ambhure ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. ... Respondents. ----- Shri. S.K. Chavan, Advocate holding for Shri. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. N.B. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No.1. Shri. P.G. Rodge, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Shri. S.K. Kadam, Advocate for respondent No.3. ------- CORAM:NARESH H PATIL & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE:17th JUNE 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The petitioner’s grievance is that after his services were transfered from respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 from 1st April 2004 onwards he was not paid salary till 2 he joined with respondent No.2 in October 2004. 3) The learned counsel Shri. P.G. Rodge for respondent No.2 disputes the date of joining of the petitioner. According to the counsel, the petitioner joined on 1-12-2004. Therefore, respondent No.2 is liable to pay his salary from 1-12-2004 onwards. 4) The learned counsel Shri. S.K. Kadam for respondent No.3 submits that as the services of the persons like the petitioner were transferred to respondent No.2, the entire salary will have to be paid by respondent No.2 and no liability can be fastened on respondent No.3. 5) We have considered the submissions advanced. Perused the reply filed and the relevant documents. 3 6) We find that it would be the primary responsibility of the employer who had extracted work from the petitioner to pay his salary. From the material placed on record we find that from 1-4-2004 till 27th October 21004 the petitioner was working with respondent No. 3. Therefore, it would be the primary responsibility of respondent No.3 to pay salary to the petitioner for the said period. 7) As regards the dispute as to why the petitioner did not join in October with respondent No.2, in the facts of the case, we find that the said issue need not be addressed. As the services were transferred to respondent No.2 from 27-10-2004 onwards, respondent No.2 shall pay the salary to the petitioner for the period during which the salary was not paid. This would rest the controversy which is going on in between the parties for a small tenure of service, since last three years. There is no dispute on the point that the petitioner is now 4 working with respondent No.2. 8) We therefore pass following order : 9) The respondent No.3 is directed to pay salary to the petitioner in accordance with the prescribed pays scale as was applicable during the relevant period from 1-4-2004 till October 2004 within a period of eight (8) weeks from today. The respondent No.2 is directed to pay salary to the petitioner from 1st November 2004 onwards to the petitioner as per the prescribed scale of pay as was applicable at the relevant time within a period of eight (8) weeks from today. 10) With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.5569.06