NISHA EKNATH SHENDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioners pray for the following reliefs:---

(2.) A reply has been filed by the respondent/education Officer and all facts, alleged by the petitioners, are controverted. The petition, therefore, raises several disputed questions of fact and is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.

(3.) THE learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, pointed out that the Education Officer had already granted approval to the appointments of the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to be paid for the period they worked. Annexure No. 5, page 19 of the petition, proves this allegation of the petitioners. It speaks as regards granting of approval to the appointments of the petitioners and further directs for payment of salaries to them immediately. In the face of this document/annexure, issued in October 1985, the management was liable to make the payments. If factually payment is not done, the remedy of the petitioners was to file a suit for recovery of the money due. Instead, the petitioners have chosen to come up this Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction.