1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5218/2009 WITH (CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2737/2011) (Rangnath B Ugle vs. State of Maharashtra and another ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ DATED : 20th October, 2011. Heard Mr C.A.Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Indira Bodade, learned AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner who has been denied wage revision or proper fixation in the pay scale of Rs. 5500 -9000 as approved, with prayer that for period from 8.10.2001 till 31.3.2006 when he was working as part- time Librarian the pay should be drawn in scale of Rs.2750 - 4500 as it is 50 % of the pay scale (Rs.5500 9000) applicable to Graduate Librarian. Learned AGP has pointed out that respondent no.2-Education Officer does not possess any such power and that the petitioner has not joined his employer as a party-respondent. On last occasion, it was also contended that approval, if any, given by the Education 2 Officer to the petitoner is not annexed. Today, Shri Joshi has produced the photostat copy of communication dated 21.3.2007 sent by Education officer to his employer, namely, Nutan Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kingaonraja, District Buldana. He points out that from 1.4.2006, full-time approval has been given to petitioner as Librarian but pay scale extended is Rs.4000 - 6000. He also points out that the educational qualification noted is graduate and Bachelor of Library Science. We have taken said document on record without prejudice to the rights of the respondents in the matter. The said document is marked as Exhibit “X” for identification. As employer of the petitioner is not party, the Education Officer cannot be straightway directed to revise pay scale. Shri Joshi, however, pointed out the orders passed by this Court earlier where this Court has found that appointment after 27.12.1979 cannot be a valid justification for denial of the graduate pay- scale. The petitioner has already made a representation on 22.9.2009 to the Deputy Director of Education and to Education Officer for granting him pay scale of Rs. 5500 -9000. We, therefore, find that in the light of judgments delivered by this Court the petitioner can seek redressal of his legitimate grievance by further prosecuting that representation. 3 In this situation, we direct the respondent no.2-Education Officer as also Deputy Director of Education to look into that representation in accordance with law and to decide the same within a period of eight weeks after present order is communicated to them. They shall also verify necessary facts from employer of petitioner before taking any decision in the matter . With these directions we dispose of the Writ Petition as also the Civil Application. JUDGE JUDGE sahare