wp9403.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9403 OF 2010 Shri. Kishan s/o Shankarrao Jayabhaye, R/o-Rajiv Gandhi Vidyalaya, Nichpur, Tq-Kinwat, Dist-Nanded. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, 3) Matoshri Anusayamata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, 325, Sahayog Nagar, Nanded, Through its Secretary, Shri. Shankarrao Marutrao Gite. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.V.M. Chate Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.B.V. Wagh, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri.V.D. Gunale Advocate for Respondent No.3. ... wp9403.10 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 13TH JANUARY, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner teacher was suspended by the Respondent Management on 22nd June, 2010. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the enquiry is not completed within the stipulated time and in the light of the Judgment in the case of Shaila Shamkant Pimple vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2006 (2) Bom. C.R. Page 772, the suspension deemed to have been revoked. 3. The Respondent No.3 Management filed affidavit in reply. In Para 10 of the reply, the deponent contends that: "10. The deponent says and wp9403.10 3 submits that it is pertinent to note that despite of suspension of petitioner he is not signing the muster roll which is kept separate for him and is signing on the regular muster roll and he is discharging the duties as incharge Headmaster. Moreover, the concerned Education Officer, despite of the fact that the petitioner has been suspended, has granted him approval as incharge Headmaster from 22.6.2010 for a period of 3 months and the petitioner is working as incharge Headmaster accordingly. The deponent submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner is not obeying the suspension order and he is discharging the duties as incharge Headmaster, he is being not paid his subsistence allowance." 4. Considering the facts, it seems that the Petitioner is working as In-charge Headmaster. wp9403.10 4 Therefore, there is no need to pass any further order than to observe that the Petitioner is deemed to be working and the suspension order was not in operation after the prescribed period. 5. The counsel for the Respondent Management submits that the enquiry report has been submitted and within TWO WEEKS, the decision would be taken by the Respondent Management and it would be communicated to the Petitioner. In case the salary of the Petitioner is not paid, appropriate steps in that behalf, be taken by the Management. 6. With these observations the Writ Petition is disposed of. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JAN11/wp9403.10