1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 3016/2010. Jaiprakash Sampatrao Pophale -VERSUS- Education Officer, [secondary] Z.P. Buldhana and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : DECEMBER 08, 2011. Heard Shri K.V. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for petitioner, Shri Pathan, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1, Shri P.B. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Shri Surjuse, learned Counsel for respondent no.4. At the outset, Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel for petitioner states that prayer for release of salary from February, 2010 onwards for a period of three months and challenge to appointment of respondent no.4 are not being pressed, as part of this 2 petition. He seeks leave to withdraw that challenge from the present petition with liberty to raise it appropriately before competent Forum. After hearing the respective counsel, we find that the challenge in relation to non payment of salary and recruitment of respondent no.4 needs to be segregated. Accordingly we grant request made by the learned counsel for petitioner and permit the petitioner to raise the said challenge before competent Forum in accordance with law. It appears that because of communication dated 21.12.1993 sent by the Education Officer to Management, the pay-scale of petitioner was required to be reduced. Petitioner states that he got knowledge of that communication in January 2005. He received his regular salary till July 2006, because the said communication was then stayed by the Education Officer and that stay was vacated in July, 2006. Thereafter the petitioner approached the Deputy Director of Education, and the Deputy Director of Education informed his inability to take any decision, as he lacked jurisdiction, hence on 11.08.2008 3 appropriate grievance in this respect is made by the petitioner before the Education Officer and that grievance is still pending. Shri Patil, learned Counsel points out that the petitioner perhaps was not heard when order dated 21.12.1993 was passed or then when a consequential recovery was ordered. Shri Pathan, learned A.G.P. is pointing out that the grievance made is highly belated. Shri Surjuse, learned Counsel is also raising the objection on the ground of delay and latches. However, as the grievance against respondent no.4 is deleted from the petition, it is not necessary for this Court to look into his arguments. In so far as the order dated 21.12.1993 is concerned, prima facie it appears that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, he got affected thereby for the first time in July, 2006. We are not concluding this aspect as his representation in the matter is still pending before the Education Officer. The learned counsel for petitioner is relying upon some judgments to show that when wages are payable every month, 4 such reduction or deduction therefrom give rise to fresh cause of action every month. This aspect also can be looked into at appropriate stage, as and when the occasion arises. As representation made by the petitioner with the Education Officer on 11.08.2008 is still pending, we direct respondent no.1 Education Officer to decide it at the earliest and in any case within a period of three months, after the communication of this order to it and after hearing the petitioner as also respondent nos. 2 and 3. Learned A..G.P. states that he has no clear instructions about the receipt of any such representation by the office of respondent no.1. He further states that as period of about three years has already expired, the representation if received, might have been disposed of. If respondent no.1 Education Officer finds that the said representation is either not received or untraceable, the petitioner can supply copy thereof to the office of respondent no.1 and then respondent no.1 can proceed further to consider it in accordance with 5 law, as already directed above. We direct the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 and 3 to appear before respondent no.1 on 19.12.2011 and to abide by his further instructions in the matter. Needless to mention that party aggrieved by the decision taken by the Education Officer thereafter, shall be free to approach the competent Form raising all defences available in law. With these directions and observations, we dispose of the petition. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd