1 mss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 8444 OF 2008 JAYRAM BABAN SALVE .. PETITIONER Vs. The Chief Executive Officer& Ors. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Mandar Limaye for the petitioner Mr. S.P. Thorat for R-1 to 3 CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED: 6/10/2009 P.C. The petitioner was working in various schools run by the 3rd respondent, Zilla Parishad, Thane. The petitioner retired in the year 1999. In short the grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent has not paid arrears of his salary and pension. According to the petitioner his provident fund also has not been paid 2 to him. It is the petitioner's case that an amount of Rs.36,790/- has been illegally recovered from him. 2. The petitioner submitted two representations one dated 8/4/06 and another dated 2/5/06 to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent did not consider the said representations . Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition being Writ Petition No. 4511 of 2006 in this court. On 5th December, 2006 the Division Bench of this court directed the 3rd respondent to decide the petitioner's representations as expeditiously as possible and in any case before 31/1/07, as per rules. 3. According to the petitioner the 3rd respondent did not consider his representations as directed. The petitioner, therefore, filed Contempt Petition No. 419 of 2007 in this court. On 3/6/08 learned Single Judge disposed of the contempt petition. Order dated 3/6/08 indicates that order passed by the 3rd respondent dated June, 2007 was produced in the court. Learned Single Judge perused the said order and observed that decision has been taken even in respect of the petitioner. He took the order dated June, 2007 on record and disposed of the petition. 3 4. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the said order dated June 2007 passed by the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said letter makes it clear that all grievances made by the petitioner which we have quoted hereinabove, were not at all considered. He submitted that the said letter was an unsigned letter and there was no proper date on that. We do not want to go into this question because the original record is not before us. In our opinion, in the circumstances of the case it would be appropriate, if the petitioner files a fresh representation making the abovementioned grievances which can then be considered in accordance with law by the 3rd respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that such a representation will be submitted by him within two weeks from today. If such a representation is submitted, the 3rd respondent shall decide it within a period of two months from the date of receipt thereof. 6. We must note that the order passed by the 3rd respondent in June'07 does not reflect that all the grievances of the petitioner have been considered. We, therefore, direct the 3rd respondent to consider each and every grievance made by the petitioner in his 4 representation and pass a reasoned order and communicate it to the petitioner. The said order may be passed uninfluenced by order dated June 2007. We make it clear that, we have not considered the merits of the petitioner’s case. The 3rd respondent shall pass the order independently and in accordance with law. 7. Petition is disposed of. (Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.)