1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.339/2011 [Abdul Sayeed Abdul Hameed Shaikh .vrs. The State of Maharashtra and others] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Shri S.S. Shingane, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri A.S. Sonare, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3/State, Shri N.N. Thengre, Advocate for respondent no.4. .......... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 21, 2011. Advocate Shri Thengre appearing for respondent no.4 states that proposal for fixation of the petitioner in appropriate pay scale as per 6th Pay Commission is already submitted by it to respondent no.3–Education Officer. Learned AGP Shri Sonare invites attention to reply-affidavit to point out that as there was break in service of the petitioner from 19.7.2005 to 3.4.2009, proposal for fixation has not been approved by the Accounts Officer. Advocate Shri Shingane for the petitioner points out that School Tribunal has set aside the 2 termination order of the petitioner dated 12.7.2005 with effect from 19.7.2005 and has directed to absorb him in other school within a period of 60 days. In view of this direction, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no question of any break in service. He further contends that School Tribunal has also found that the petitioner was appointed again on sanctioned vacancy. During hearing, we found that the representation made by the petitioner as also respondent no.4 – Management to concerned authorities for proper consideration of the case of the petitioner and for ignoring the break or for condoning it, has not been decided either way. We, therefore, find that grievance of the petitioner can be redressed by directing respondent no.2 to take appropriate decision on that representation as early as possible and in any case within a period of four weeks from the date on which the petitioner and respondent no.4 appear before him. The petitioner and respondent no.4 shall appear before respondent no.2 for this purpose on 13th July, 2011 and after hearing them, respondent no.2 shall pass appropriate order within further period of four weeks thereafter. With these directions, the petition is 3 disposed of with liberty to aggrieved party to approach again if cause of action arises. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande