1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Review Application No.201 Of 2009 In Writ Petition No.2417 Of 2009 With Civil Application No.4038 1) The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Maharashtra State, Mumbai 32. 2) The Education Officer (S) Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. ... Applicants Versus 1) Prashant Eknath Aarekar, Age 39 years, Occupation : Service, R/o Vivekanand Colony, Newasa, Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar. 2) Jai Bhawani Gramin Sanstha, Ranjangaon Devi, Taluka Newasa, Through its Secretary Ramdas Maroti Najan, Age 45 years, Occupation: agriculture, R/o Ranjangaon Devi, 2 Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar. 3) Balasaheb Pathaji Pandit, Head Master, HBP Bansi Maharaj Tambe Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Ranjangaon, Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar. .. Respondents. -------- Shri. R.P. Phatke, Additional Government Pleader for review petitioner. Shri. V.R. Dhorde with Shri. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri. V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. ------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE: 7th APRIL 2010 ORAL ORDER : (Per Naresh H Patil): 1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3 2) Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent taken up for final disposal. 3) We have perused the order passed by this Court in the proceedings of Writ Petition No.2417 of 2009, the Letters Patent Appeal No. 123 of 2007 and the proceedings of the Review Application. 4) This case is a glaring example as to how, due to non application of mind on the part of the concerned officers and their casual approach in prosecuting the Court proceedings, further complications arise consuming valuable time of the Court. 5) By this Review Application the Deputy Education Officer Mr. Bhausaheb Sitaram Sonawane, who had earlier filed affidavit-in- reply in the proceedings of Writ Petition No. 4 2417 of 2009, is coming up with a case that the original petitioner namely Prashant Eknath Aarekar was not working in a sanctioned post. The learned Additional Government Pleader based on the instructions of the Deputy Education Officer, who is present in Court and the original record, submits that since last several years the pay bill of Prashant Aarekar was not sanctioned by the Department. The approval granted to the post of In charge Head Master which was held by Mr. Aarekar was on non grant basis. The said order, according to the Additional Government Pleader, was itself cancelled by subsequent communication made by the department. 6) By placing reliance on the affidavit filed by the Deputy Education Officer, more particularly in view of the averments raised in para 13, this Court had disposed of the 5 writ petition. The Deputy Education Officer in para 13 of the affidavit-in-reply filed in the proceedings of the Writ Petition No.2417 of 2009 made a statement - “13. At the further outset, I most respectfully say and submit that the salary bills of the petitioner from 1-10-2007 are approved by the Respondent No.2 and it will be paid to the petition within a period of 8 days.” 7) In substance, the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. Phatke is that Pay Unit Department has brought to the notice of the Deputy Education Officer that the original petitioner was not entitled for payment of salary from the State grant as his services were never approved by the Department. It is further submitted that apparent mistake/error was committed by the Deputy Education Officer in making statement 6 on oath which was the basis for this Court to pass order while disposing of the writ petition. 8) The learned counsel Shri. R.N. Dhorde appearing for the original petitioner submits that the original petitioner is a senior most employee and was appointed as in-charge Head Master. The School Tribunal had passed order in favour of the original petitioner directing reinstatement and payment of salary. The Management had challenged the said order in a writ petition which was admitted but the interim relief was refused. 9) Letters Patent Appeal No.123 of 2007 filed by the Management - Jai Bhawani Gramin Shikshan Sanstha was dismissed on 3rd September 2007. 10) The learned counsel Shri. V.D. Hon appearing for the management submits that, the 7 Education Officer has failed to point out any error apparent for causing interference in review jurisdiction. It was submitted that the management was directed to reinstate original petitioner and accordingly he was reinstated. The counsel submits that the Education Officer had taken specific stand that pay bill of the original petitioner would be passed within 8 days, therefore, no case arises for interference in the matter under the review jurisdiction of this Court. 11) We have considered the submissions advanced by the counsel appearing for the contesting parties. We have perused the record produced before us. The learned Additional Government Pleader Shri. Phatke submits that on the instructions from the 8 Pay Unit Department it is now revealed that the petitioner's services were not approved nor any pay bill was sanctioned by the Department in favour of the petitioner. A statement was made earlier by the Deputy Education Officer based on which the Writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court. The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that now the Department has taken a stand that the original petitioner is not entitled to be paid salary from the Department or the salary grant. 12) By an order dated 8th September 2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 2417 of 2009 the Division Bench in clear words had observed thus: “ ..... We, therefore, direct the Education Officer to decide the entitlement of the petitioner for payment of 9 salary from the salary grants. In the event, the Education Officer rejects the bills for payment of salary to the petitioner, all the arrears of salary from 01-10-2007 till June 2009 shall be deposited by the management in this Court. ....” By order dated 17th November 2009 this Court further granted time to the Education Officer to decide the entitlement of the petitioner. 13) We may observe that this Court had directed the Eduction Officer to decide the issue whereas the Education Officer had left the issue to the Deputy Education Officer in complete disregard to the order passed by this Court. In fact, the acts of the Education Officer and the Deputy Education Officer are contemptuous in nature. 10 14) We are convinced that the review petition calls for interference by this Court. There are sufficient convincing reasons for the same, according to us. 15) For the reasons stated above, we allow this review application. The order dated 24th November 2009 passed in Writ Petition No.2417 of 2009 is recalled. The Writ Petition is restored to files. 16) We direct the Director of Education / Deputy Director of Education to initiate departmental enquiry against the concerned Education Officer and the Deputy Education Officer in respect of the manner in which they have dealt with the issue which caused embarrassment to the parties by consuming vital time of this Court. The 11 inquiry be completed with a period of eight weeks from today and a report be submitted before us. 17) The parties are at liberty to get the issue of entitlement of the original petitioner for claiming salary decided by the Education Officer. The Education Officer himself / herself shall personally pass order in respect of the entitlement of the original petitioner to receive salary from the Department after perusing the record and hearing the original petitioner and the representative of the management if he choses to do so. 18) The Registry is directed to place before us after eight weeks the proceedings of the review application for ascertaining 12 the compliance of our order. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Civil Application No.4038 Of 2010 stands disposed of. (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ ra.201.09