1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. MMM OF 2022
DISTRICT: NANDED
In the matter of Article 14, 19 and 226 of the
Constitution of India;
AND
In the order dated 10.02.2017 passed in
Contempt Petition No. MMM of 2016 in Writ
Petition No. 2295 of 1997.
AND
In the matter representation dated 17.02.2017
pending with the Assistant Commissioner
Social Welfare Department, Nanded.
2
ABC ….PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Social Justice and Specials Assistance Department.
Mantrala Mumbai.
...RESPONDENT.
To,
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND
OTHER HON’BLE PUISNE JUDGES OF THE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE
ABOVE NAMED PETITIONER
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. The petitioner is the citizen of India and resident of above
mentioned address in title clause. The petitioner was appointed as junior
clerk in the year 1983 in Ashram School. The management has
terminated services of the petitioner against which he preferred as appeal
as school tribunal which was dismissed. The petitioner preferred writ
petition to this Hon’ble Court W.P. No. MMM of 1997. This Hon’ble
Court vide an order dated has partly allowed the petition and directed
the authorities and the management to reinstate the petitioner.
Unfortunately the respondent authorities as well as management has not
complied the order passed by this Court as result of which the petitioner
was constrained to file contempt petition No. 829 of 2016. The Hon’ble
Court after considering the statement made by Assistant Commissioner,
3
Nanded i.e. respondent No. 2 herein that the petitioner shall file the
detail representation to the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2
has ensured that, the same would be decided on its merits after hearing
all the concerned parties. The respondent No. 2 accordingly has issued
noticed of hearing all the parties and closed the matter for order on
25.04.2017. Till today respondent No. 2 has not decided the
representation of the petitioner. Hence the petitioner is approaching this
Hon’ble Court in its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction.
2. The petitioner respectfully submits that, the respondent No. 1 is
the Secretary who has over all control over the Ashram run by Social
Welfare Department in the state of Maharashtra. The respondent No. 2 is
the authority who is expected to decide the representation of the
petitioner. All the parties are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court.
3. The petitioner respectfully submits that, the petitioner was
appointed as junior clerk by an order dated in secondary Ashram
School, Gandhinagar, Tq. Kandhar, District Nanded. The services of the
petitioner were also approved by the Social Welfare Department. The
District Social Welfare Officer vide an order dated 27.08.1991 has
approved and confirm the petitioner on the said post. All of sudden the
management has restrained the petitioner from signing the muster role.
As a result of which the petitioner was constrained to approach to school
tribunal by filing an appeal. The Ld. School Tribunal vide an order
dated has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground
4
that, one B.M. Gotamwar was already appointed in place of petitioner
who has not been made party respondent in appeal. Being aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 2295 of 1997 before this
Hon’ble Court. The said petition came to be allowed vide judgment and
order dated 11.08.2016. The Hon’ble Court has directed the respondent
No. 2 and the management to reinstate the petitioner and the further
benefits also been granted.
4. The petitioner respectfully submits that, the respondent No. 2
after an order passed by this Hon’ble Court was expected to decide the
claim of the petitioner on its merit an according to the directions issued
by this Hon’ble Court vide an order dated 11.08.2016. Unfortunately the
respondent No. 2 has not followed the directions issued by this Court as
result of which the petitioner was constrained to file the Contempt
Petition No. 829 of 2016. The respondent No. 2 in Contempt Petition
has made a categorical statement that, the petitioner shall file a
comprehensive representation in two weeks and the respondent No. 2
has insured that, the same would be decided on its merits after hearing
all the concern parties. On the basis of the statement made by the
respondent No. 2 the Contempt Petition was withdrawn by the petition.
Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT “A” is the copy of order dated
10.02.2017 passed in Contempt Petition No. 829 of 2016.
5. The petitioner respectfully submits that, in view of order passed
by this Hon’ble Court this contempt petition the petitioner has filed a
detail representation to the respondent No. 2 on 17.02.2017 pointing out
the detail claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has also requested the
5
respondent No. 2 to comply the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in
W.P. No. 2295 of 1997. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT “B”
is the copy of representation dated 17.02.2017.
6. The petitioner respectfully submit that, after filing of detail
representation the respondent No. 2 has issued notices to all the
concerned parties on 23.02.2017 and kept the hearing on 01.03.2017.
On the said date the hearing could not take place and the hearing
adjourned to 06.03.2017 thereafter, it was adjourned 14.03.2017. On the
said date also the hearing could not take place and it was adjourned
16.03.2017 on 16.03.2017 the respondent No. 2 has heard all the parties
and closed the matter for orders. Thereafter, 17.03.2017 the
management has filed an application to respondent No. 2 to grant them
opportunity of filing their reply. It is pertinent to note that the
management for the first time has appeared before respondent No. 2 on
17.03.2017 and sought time to file their reply, the respondent No. 2
ought to have directed them to file reply then and then only. Instead of
doing so, the respondent No. 2 sought opinion of the government pleader
at Aurangabad. Thereafter, the matter was prolonged till 25.04.2017.
The respondent No. 2 on 25.04.2017 has again heard all the concerned
parties including the management and closed the matter for passing
orders/ taking decision. Thereafter, till today the respondent No. 2
without any reason has not decided the representation of the petitioner.
The petitioner has several time made communication to the respondent
No. 2 and requested to take decision as early as possible. Unfortunately
the respondent No. 2 has not decided the representation of the petitioner
6
for the reasons best known to them. Hereto annexed and marked as
EXHIBIT “C” is the copy of Roznama recorded by the respondent No.
2.
7. The petitioner respectfully submits that, the petitioner is fighting
since 1997 against the illegal act done by the management. The
petitioner has succeeded in the court proceedings but the respondent
authorities joining hands with the management is prolonging the case
with one or the other way. The respondent No. 2 is not paying any hid to
the request made by the petitioner. The hearing of the said case is
completed on 25.04.2017 and till today the respondent No. 2 is not
issuing the order for the reasons best known him. Therefore, the
petitioner is constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court for getting
decided the representation dated 17.02.2017 pending with respondent
No. 2.
8. The petitioner has not filed any other Appeal or Application in
this Hon’ble High Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
regard to the subject matter of this Writ Petition.
9. The petitioner has no other efficacious speedy remedy than to
approach this Hon’ble High Court in the writ jurisdiction under. Article
226 of the Constitution of India
10. The petitioner has not received any notice of caveat from the
respondent in respect of the subject matter till today.
7
11. The petitioner undertakes to supply English translation of Marathi
documents, if any, as and when necessary.
12. The Petitioner craves leave to add, to alter, amend and/or delete
any of the aforesaid paragraphs, if necessary.
13. The Petitioners, therefore, prays Your Lordships will be pleased
to;
A) The writ petition may kindly be allowed.
B) Issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus, to
direct the respondent No. to decide the representation/ proposal of
the petitioner dated MMM as early as possible preferably within
two weeks.
C) Any other just and equitable relief may kindly be granted in
favour of the petitioner.
And for this act of kindness, petitioner as in duty bound
shall ever pray.
Place:
Date:
8
VERIFICATION
I, ABC, do hereby state on solemn affirmation that, contents in
this writ petition from para No. 1 to 12, and prayer clause (A) to (C) are
read over and explained to me in Marathi and the same are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Hence, verified on this 1st day of July, 2022 at
Identified and
Explained by me Deponent
