1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2865 OF 2009 Md.Abdul Asad Abdul Ala PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS Mr.S.S.Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.V.B.Ghatge, learned AGP for respondent no.1 and 2 Mr.A.V.Patil, h/f. Mr.V.D.Gunale, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and 4 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 29/08/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.2 to forthwith release the honorarium payable to the petitioner from June 2008 till the date of filing of the present writ petition and subsequent thereto. 2 3. It appears that the petitioner came to be appointed as Shikshansevak on 23/07/2007 and by an order dated 26/10/2007, the appointment of the petitioner came to be approved for the period of 3 years. According to the petitioner though he has been discharging his duties, the pay bills submitted by the Head Master in respect of payment of honorarium of the petitioner came to be rejected by respondent no.2 Education Officer since June 2008. The petitioner therefore states that he has been deprived of the honorarium payable to him since June 2008. 4. On notice being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. At para no.6 of the affidavit in reply of the Deputy Education Officer, (Secondary) Z.P. Aurangabad, it is stated that the salary is not being paid to the petitioner on account of reduction of the workload. The respondents to their affidavit in reply have also annexed a copy of the communication dated 08/05/2008 in which it was pointed out that on account of reduction of the workload, the Management should re-assign its employees in order to ensure that no prejudice is caused to any of the approved staff. 5. In the peculiar facts of the case, we are inclined to allow this petition and direct respondent no.2 Education Officer to hear the petitioner as well as the Management in respect of reduction of the workload and thereafter pass orders in accordance with Law which would also include the orders in respect of the payment of the honorarium to the petitioner, if the petitioner is found to be entitled 3 to be paid the honorarium. Undisputedly, the petitioner has been discharging his duties as a Shikshansevak from the date of his appointment till today which also include a period for which the petitioner has not been paid the honorarium. 6. In the light of that therefore, we allow this petition and direct respondent no.2 to hear the petitioner and the Management within 2 weeks from today, and thereafter to pass orders in accordance with Law within 3 weeks thereafter. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/AUGUST 2009/wp2865-09