VAKIL JALILKHAN PATHAN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Advocate Shri P.N. Shende for the petitioner, Shri A.S. Fulzele, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Advocate Shri B.H. Shambarkar for respondent nos. 3 and 4.

(2.) CONSIDERING the nature of controversy, matter is heard finally by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith.

(3.) ADVOCATE Shri P.N. Shende submits that the petitioner claims increment for the period prior to his reinstatement in terms of the judgment of the School Tribunal dated 20022001. According to him, the petitioner has been reinstated with continuity as also backwages and when the matter went before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioner only waived backwages. Hence the benefits of continuity should have been given and while reinstating the petitioner back in service, his wages should have been fixed after releasing increments notionally till that date. He submits that when the omission of Management to fix the wages accordingly was pointed out to the Competent Authorities, on 08122010 the Deputy Director of Education has communicated to the Accounts Officer of Education Department that as there is no reference to increments in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioner is not entitled to increment for the period from 1993 till his reinstatement in 2002. He argues that thus the order of Hon'ble Apex Court has been misconstrued and the earlier orders passed by the School Tribunal have been overlooked.