1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4406 of 2010. Ku.Vinu Damaji Bante ..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.Z.Jibhkate, Adv. for the petitioner. Smt.Bharti Dangre, AGP for the respondents. C ORAM : Mohit S.Shah, CJ. & Smt.Vasanti A.Naik, J. DATED : 7th September, 2010. P. C. 1. Challenge in the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the orders dated 6th December, 2005 and 24th April, 2006 passed by the State of Maharashtra, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Commissioner, Tribal Development, refusing the payment of back wages to the petitioner for the period from 1st July 2003 to 30th November, 2005. 2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner was appointed as a teacher after following proper procedure and her appointment was approved and the petitioner was also paid for the period for which the appointment was approved. However, the petitioner was not paid salary for the subsequent period from 1st July 2003 to 30th November, 2005. The 2 petitioner is also being paid salary from December, 2005 onwards and there is no controversy in that respect. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s case was clubbed with the case of the other teachers whose appointments were suffering from some irregularities and therefore, case of those teachers was pending before the State Government for regularization. The State Government accordingly passed orders of regularization on 6th December, 2005 by classifying the irregularities into four categories. The first category being of 599 teachers, who were possessing necessary qualifications and were also entitled to get benefit of reservation, but proper procedure was not followed for their appointments. It is submitted that the petitioner was placed in the above category merely because her case was being espoused by the Union. It is further stated that even common petition was filed being W.P.No.2833 of 2009 and when the petition reached hearing, the petitioner was required to withdraw the petition with permission to file individual writ petition for getting unpaid salary till the date of regularization of services. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that there is nothing on record which shows that the petitioner had made separate representation pointing out the said fact. When no representation is made before seeking writ of mandamus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this court. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Having regard to the facts of the present case, we dispose of the petition with direction that upon petitioner’s making representation before respondent no.3 – the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Nagpur, highlighting facts of her individual case, respondent no.3 shall consider the same 3 and take appropriate decision in the matter. In case respondent no.3 finds that petitioner’s case stands on separate and different footing from that of the employees whose services were regularized by the orders dated 6th December, 2005 and dated 24th July, 2006, respondent no.3 shall pass appropriate order on the petitioner’s representation. In case respondent no.3 finds that sanction of the higher authority is required, respondent no.3 shall take necessary steps in that regard. If the petitioner makes such a representation within two weeks from today, respondent no.3 shall take necessary decision within two months from the date of receipt of the representation. Petition is disposed of with above directions. CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE. chute