1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1833 of 2011 Bairagibaba Education Society VERSUS Education Officer (Secondary), Z. P., Washim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S. P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. P. D. Kothari, A. G. P. for the respondent-sole. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 11th August, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent-Education Officer to make the regular grant to the petitioner school by granting permanent sanction as per the protected pay-scale of Shri Vijay Pralhadrao Phatrikar. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent to take appropriate decision in this matter within the stipulated time, in the interest of justice. It appears that the petitioner was directed to absorb one Shri Vijay Phatrikar as an Assistant Teacher by the order dated 19.10.2004. It is the case of the petitioner that the Superintendent, Pay Unit, Washim had returned the proposal of the petitioner for grant of salary of the month of April, 2011 on the ground that there was some difference 2 in the sanctioned Under Graduates and Officiating Graduates (Class 5 to 7) and the petitioner was asked to give an explanation in this regard. The petitioner’s anxiety is that the petitioner should not be asked to pay the salary of Shri Vijay Phatrikar. The petition appears to be premature as, on 05.04.2011, the Superintendent, Pay Unit, Washim has asked the petitioner to submit his explanation as per the approved staffing pattern. The petitioner has not furnished any explanation to the Superintendent, Pay, Unit, Washim in pursuance of its order dated 05.04.2011 and has instead approached this Court. Hence, it would be necessary for the petitioner to submit the explanation to the Superintendent, Pay Unit, Washim as the explanation may even find favour with the Superintendent. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale