1 wp6576-09.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6576/2009. Smt.Mahananda w/o Mamleshwar Waghmare .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maha. & Ors. .. Respondents. .... Shri P.B.Rakhunde h/f Shri S.B.Bhapkar,Adv.for petr. Shri S.K.Kadam,AGP for State .... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & T.V.NALAWADE,JJ. DATE : 21/10/2011. 1] Heard. The petitioner was working in Late Bhai Uddhavrao Patil Gramin Vikas Mandal, Tadwale[Kasbe] as a Cook. The petitioner filed present petition on 29/8/2009 for seeking directions to respondent to pay salary and arrears for the period from 1/5/2004 onwards by sanctioning/approving the services of the petitioner as Cook and to deposit entire amount of salary. 2] The respondent no.1 filed affidavit in reply. In para 5 of the reply, it is submitted by deponent that the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with prescribed rules, therefore, approval was not granted. The petitioner proceeded on hunger strike before the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Amravati on 22/9/2008. The Additional Commissioner directed the office of deponent to enquire into the matter and take appropriate decision. As per the direction of the Additional 2 wp6576-09.odt Commissioner, a fact finding committee was constituted. The committee submitted the report to the effect that the petitioner was entitled for wages for aforesaid period. The deponent further submits that due to dispute in the management and the irregularities committed by the management, the recognition of the school is withdrawn by order dated 30/7/2009. 3] Shri K.G.Patil, learned A.G.P. has placed on record a communication dated 13/10/10 received from Government Secondary Ashram School, Osmanabad intimating thereby that the petitioner was handed over a cheque to the tune of Rs. 72665/- alongwith receipt of the said amount on 9/10/10. 4] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is yet to receive full and final payment in respect of arrears according to the calculations of the petitioner in that respect and a representation is already filed. 5] In exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction, no further interference is warranted. If the petitioner had filed representation, the authorities may consider the same on its own merits. Petition is disposed of. (T.V.NALAWADE,J.) (NARESH H.PATIL,J.) umg/wp6576-09