1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2215 OF 1994 Diwakar S/o Eknath Tayade, Aged 43 years, Occu. Nil, R/o Thor Gavan, Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaaon. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1] The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Urban Development & Municipal Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2] The Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. 3] The Assistant Commissioner, (Backward Class cell) Nashik road, Nashik. 4] Collector, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon. 5] Deputy Director of Educaiton, Nashik Division, Nashik Dist. Nashik. 6] Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon. 7] Municipal Council, Sawada, Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon Through its Chief Officer. 2 8] Smt. Anandibai Gambhir High School, sawada, Tq. Raver Dist. Jalgaon through its Head Master. ..RESPONDENTS ... Mr. P.R. Patil , Advocate for Petitioner. Shri K.B. Choudhari, Addl.G.P. for respondents State Shri V.T. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No. 7 CORAM :- B.R.GAVAI AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA JJ. DATE : 9thth JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: By way of present petition, the petitioners seeks implementation of various directions issued to respondent No. 7 by respondent Nos. 2,3,4,5 & 6, to appoint the petitioner forthwith and pay the salary from 01/06/1990 till his reinstatement in service. 2. The petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher on 30-07-1989 by respondent NO. 7. The petitioner's service came to be discontinued on 31-05-1990. The petitioner thereafter made various representations to various authorities requesting for directions to respondent No. 7 to continue the petitioner in 3 service as an assistant teacher. 3. Respondent No. 5 vide order dated 25/07/1991 issued a direction to the respondent NO. 1 to appoint the petitioner in service with continuity. Another direction was issued by respondent No. 6 to the similar effect. The Collector, Jalgaon vide order dated 16/12/1991 also issued similar direction. Lastly the directions were issued by respondent NO. 2 to the respondent No. 7 for the same purpose. However, it appears that, in-spite of the directions of the superiors, the petitioner was not appointed. Therefore, petitioner filed the present petition before this Court. 4. Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the superiors have given directions to the respondent NO.7 to appoint the petitioner then the respondent No. 7 is duty bound to comply with the said directions and appoint the petitioner. He submits that by an interim order passed by this Hon’ble Court on 11/10/1994 the petitioner is already reinstated. 4 He prays that direction be issued for paying the salary from 01/06/1990 and also given deemed date from the said date. 5. Shri Choudhari, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No. 7 submits that the petitioner was discontinued since there was no work load available. He further submits that petitioner was not working satisfactorily on the said post and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. When a subordinate receives directions from its superiors the said authority is bound appoint the petitioner for the compliance of the directions. The collector, Jalgaon and Divisional commissioner have issued directions in exercise of their powers of superintendence under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965. In the matter of education, the Municipal Council is bound with the directions of Dy. Director of Education and Education Officer (Secondary). It appears that there was backlog of Scheduled Caste candidates and directions were issued to appoint 5 the petitioner, so as to fill the posts of backlog, in spite of that the respondent No. 7 has chosen not to comply with the said directions. We have no hesitation to hold that the inaction of respondent No. 7 in not appointing the petitioner as per the directions of the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 is totally illegal. 7. In pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Hon’ble Court on 11/10/994 the petitioner has already been appointed. Since the directions to the respondent NO. 7 are to give appointment to the petitioner with effect from 01/06/1990, the petitioner would be entitled to the deemed date from 01/06/1990. However, we are not inclined to give relief in so far as the salary of the petitioner from 01/06/1990 till the actual reinstatement on the ground of “no work no pay. “ 8. Rule is therefore, made absolute by directing the respondent NO. 7 to treat the petitioner’s deemed date as an assistant teacher from 01/06/1990. Needless to state that the 6 arrears if any on account of said deemed date shall be paid to the petitioner within a period six months from today. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ] [B.R.GAVAI, J ] SDM* 2215.94 WP(J)