1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4818/2010 Shri Vasant Ramchandra Kambhalkar vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Tribal Development Deptt., Mantralaya Mumbai-32 and others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mr. V.N.Patre, Advocate holding for Mr. A.Z.Jibhkate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. B.H.Dangre, Addl. G.P. For respondents. CORAM : S.A.BOBDE & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 10.10.2010 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.10.2010 Challenge in the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the orders dated 6.12.2005 and 9.12.2005 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 29.10.2003 to 30.11.2005. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner was appointed as a teacher after following proper procedure 2` and his appointment for the period from 29.10.2001 to 28.10.2003 was approved and the petitioner was also paid for the said period. However, the petitioner was not paid salary for the subsequent period from 29.10.2003 to 30.11.2005. The petitioner is also being paid salary from 1st December, 2005 onwards and there is no controversy in that respect. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is identical with the case in Writ Petition No. 4408/2010 and, therefore, the order passed in the said writ petition on 7th September, 2010 be passed in this petition also. Mrs Dangre, learned Addl. G.P. confirms that the facts in both the writ petitions are same and she has no objection if the same order is passed in this petition. 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 his individual case, Respondent no.3 shall consider the same 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 3` services were regularized by the orders dated 6th December, 2005 and dated 24th July, 2006 the 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, the respondent no.3 shall take necessary decision within two months from the date of receipt of the representation. Petition is disposed of with the above directions. JUDGE JUDGE patle 4`