SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

BOMBAY HIGH COURT - BENCH AT NAGPUR
AKASH MADHUKAR SHELKE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRTARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT, NASIK AND OTHERS – Respondent
WP 8426/2018



Advocates:
['MOHAN SUDAME', 'ARCHITA SUDAMEARCHITA SUDAME', 'AKSHAYA SUDAME', 'ARCHITA SUDAME', 'COPY SERVED TO GP FOR R-1 TO 5 SMITA TAKSANDE(FOR R']

10.wp.8426.2018.odt

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO.8426 /2018

Akash Madhukar Shelke

Aged about 40 years, Occ.: Service,

R/o Satara Filed, Mamaji Talkies Road,

Bhusawal, District Jalgaon,

(Present address, 46, Samarth Nagar,

Gajanan Colony, Khamgaon,

District Buldhana)

..... PETITIONER

// VERSUS //

1. State of Maharashtra

Through it’s Additional Chief Secretary,

Tribal Development Department,

Madam Kama Marg,

Hutama Rajguru Chowk,

Mantralaya Mumbai – 400031.

2. Commissioner, Tribal Development,

Maharashtra State

Adivasi Vikas Bhawan,

1st Floor, Gadkari Chowk,

Old Agra Road, Nasik.

3. Additional Commissioner

Integrated Tribal Development Project,

Police Headqauter, Infront of T. B.

Hospital, Amravati.

4. Project Officer

Integrated Tribal Development Project,

Akola, Maheshwari Bhawan,

New Radhakishan Plot, Opposite Agrasen

Bhawan, Mahsul Bhawan, Akola.

5. Project Officer

Integrated Tribal Development Project,

Amravati

Dharni, District Amravati.,

10.wp.8426.2018.odt

2

6. Panchsheel Aided Adiwasi Ashramshala,

Bahiram Karanja, Tq. Chandurbazar,

Dist. Amravati through its Secretary

Bajirao Rajaram Gawai.

.... RESPONDENTS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Shri A. M. Sudame, Advocate for petitioner

Shri D. P. Thakare, Addl. G. P. for the respondent nos.1 to 5.

Ms. S. Taksande, Advocate for respondent no.6.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND

AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATED : 06/01/2021

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

1]

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2]

Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing

for the parties.

3]

The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that although his

suspension for his alleged involvement on account of negligence in the

incident of sexual harassment of inmates of his earlier school has been

withdrawn and he has been directed to be reinstated in service, at the

time of his absorption in another school, his absence during period of

suspension was not regularized. There is also an issue raised about

payment of salary to the petitioner.

4]

So far as, payment of salary is concerned, respondent no.6,

10.wp.8426.2018.odt

3

the headmaster of respondent no.5, has filed an affidavit today

disclosing that pay bill of the petitioner for the period from 05.11.2016

to 05.04.2018 has been prepared and sent to the office of Project Officer,

Dharni for payment thereof to the petitioner. So, payment of arrears of

salary is no longer an issue which can be agitated by the petitioner.

5]

As regards the regularization of the absence of petitioner

during the suspension period, we find from the order dated 01.08.2018,

whereby the petitioner has been directed to be absorbed in another

school, that the suspension of the petitioner has been withdrawn and the

petitioner has been reinstated back in his service by Additional Director,

Triable Development Department, Amravati. These facts are

categorically mentioned in the said order. If this is so, we are of the

opinion that withdrawal of the suspension has led to accrual of all usual

benefits to the petitioner including retention of his seniority and

continuity in service, as per rules. Grievance of the petitioner in this

regard, in our view, now stands satisfied by the specific facts mentioned

in the order dated 01.08.2018.

6]

In the result, we find that the prayer clause (i) of this

petition has worked itself out and there is no need to pass any further

order. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Warrant is discharged.

10.wp.8426.2018.odt

4

Rule accordingly. No costs.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Sarkate.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top