1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4464 of 2009. Dnyaneshwar Waktu Balbuddhe ..vs.. State of Mah. and others. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.A.D.Mohgaonkar Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.S.B.Ahirkar,AGP for resp.no.1 and 2. Mr.V.N.Morande Adv. for resp.no.3 and 4. C ORAM : D.B.BHOSALE AND PRASANNA B.VARALE,JJ. DATED : 5th August, 2010. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 26/6/2009 issued by respondent no.2 – Deputy Director, seeking recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioner by way of salary. 3. Mr.Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued this matter for quite sometime on merits and at the end of hearing submitted that the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner. As a matter of fact, we have heard him on merits for more than 40 minutes and perused the entire record with his assistance. 2 Having found that we are not with the petitioner, he made the grievance that the impugned order was passed without hearing him and he, therefore, prayed for remand of the matter for hearing before the Deputy Director and for passing fresh orders on merits. We are not inclined to accept this prayer, since we have perused the entire record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and we have considered the case of the petitioner on merits. 4. There is no dispute that respondent no.4 – Junior College was given 100 per cent grants from 1st July, 2004. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as ‘Shikshan Sevak’ on a fixed remuneration of Rs.4000/- from 13/8/2004. In view thereof, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the scheme of ‘Shikshan Sevak’ was not applicable to respondent no.4 – College when he was appointed in August, 2004, is not correct and deserves to be rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner though has not disputed that the petitioner was appointed as ‘Shikshan Sevak’ on fixed remuneration of Rs.4000/-, he submitted that since the scheme was not made applicable to respondent no.4 -College on the date of his appointment, he was rightly treated as lecturer/full-time teacher vide letter dated 12.9.2007 w.e.f. 13.8.2004 in Pay-Scale of Rs.7225 – 11050, and therefore, the impugned order issued by Deputy Director seeking recovery of the amount 3 is wrong and illegal. In other words, it was submitted that the respondent – College was wrong in appointing the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak since at the time of his appointment the Shikshan Sevak Scheme was not made applicable to them, and in view thereof his appointment as Shikshan Sevak ought to be treated as full time lecturer. This submission deserves to be rejected in view of the admitted position that respondent no.4 – College started getting 100% grant w.e.f. July, 2004; i.e. since before the appointment of the petitioner as ‘Shikshan Sevak’ was made vide the letter of appointment dated 13.8.2004. In any case, in the present petition, the petitioner is not seeking declaration or has not prayed for declaring him as full- time teacher and on this ground also the petition deserves to be rejected. In view of the admitted facts, we do not find any ground/reason worth considering to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Director, which is impugned in the present petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE. chute 4