1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5451 OF 1998. Balaji Vishwanath Narwade, Age 30 years, Occ.Service, R/o next to Mangalmurti Hospital, Vishal Guest House, Jai Bhavaninagar, Aurangabad, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Yuvak Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, through its Secretary, Kumtha (Kh.) Tq. Udgir, Dist.Latur. 2. The Head Master, Ahilyadevi Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Indianagar Latur, Tq. and Dist. Latur. 3. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Latur, Dist. Latur. 4. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondents. ... Mr.N.B.Suryawanshi, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.B.Patil, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.V.D.Gunale, advocate for the Respondent No.2. ... 2 CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 12.08.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.) 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking payment of salary for the period June 1993 to June 1997. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to an advertisement, he had applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in the Respondent NO.2 School vide application dated 10.6.1993. After interview, he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Respondent No.2 School by the Respondent No.1 vide appointment order dated 12.6.1993. It is further case of the petitioner that though he was continuously working, he was not paid salary as such ultimately resigned from his job in June 1997. The petitioner as such claims salary from June 1993 to June 1997. 3. Mr.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the 3 petitioner submitted that the record in the shape of the appointment order, inspection report of the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur dated 4.10.1993, the civil list, the muster roll. All these documents unequivocally establish that the petitioner was continuously working as Assistant Teacher in the Respondent No.2 School. Even the work of the petitioner was appreciated as observed in the inspection report and the various certificates on record. According to him, having worked as Assistant Teacher in the Respondent No.2 School, the petitioner is entitled for the salary. 4. Mr.Gunale, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that there was no sanctioned post. There was a dispute in the management and the then Secretary illegally appointed the petitioner, even there was no workload available. The petitioner, hand in glove with the Secretary, signed the Muster roll. If the petitioner's degree is perused, he is B.Com.B.P.Ed. and there was already one physical instructor working in the said School. According 4 to him, at the relevant time the petitioner was serving with the Credit Society and the salary certificate and the muster roll testifies the said fact. As such according to Mr.Gunale, the petitioner is not entitled for any salary. 5. The appointment order shows that the petitioner was appointed on 12.6.1993 in the pay- scale of Rs.1400-2600. Even the inspection report of the Education Department which is an independent statutory authority clarifies that the petitioner was working in the said School on the date of inspection. Even the work of the petitioner was appreciated by the Education Officer in the said inspection report. The staff list of each year consistently shows the name of the petitioner as working in the said School. Perusal of the staff list also shows that the petitioner was made permanent on 13.6.1995. The said staff list is under the signature of the Head Master i.e. one who has filed affidavit on behalf of the Respondent No.2. The Respondents in their affidavit-in-reply do not dispute that the petitioner was appointed. Their bone of 5 contention is that because of the dispute in the Management, the Secretary has erroneously appointed the petitioner and the workload was not available. In view of the fact that the appointment has not been disputed and the fact that he was working as Assistant Teacher with the said School can be vouched from all these documents, the Respondents are duty bound to pay the salary to the petitioner as per the pay-scale applicable to Assistant Teacher on the principle of equal pay for equal work. With regard to the contention of Respondents that petitioner was working with the Credit Society, the petitioner has filed affidavit-in-rejoinder clarifying that he was working for one year on part time basis as he was not getting salary from the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and for the purpose of his livelihood, he had to take part time job which he had left after one year. 6. In light of the fact that petitioner has worked from June 1993 to June 1997, we allow the petition and direct the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 to pay the salary to the petitioner for the 6 period from June 1993 to June 1997 at the prevailing pay-scale as applicable to the petitioner within a period of six (6) months from today. Rule made accordingly absolute with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp545198