PADMA MANWANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally by consent of parties. Heard petitioner appearing in person.

(2.) This court on various occasions has passed orders and ultimately the respondents have filed reply and lastly on 4.4.2014 and 28.4.2014. We have to consider, in the background of the averments made in the petition and the prayers so raised, basically with regard to the salary and the interest on the salary of the period 198687 to 198990 as the petitioner admittedly worked as Assistant Head Mistress. No salary was paid as the respondentconcerned department refused to grant any approval at the relevant time stating that the post was reserved and therefore, the petitioner being open candidate ought not to have been appointed to the post of Assistant Head Mistress (single post). There is no denial on the part of her working as Assistant Head Mistress.

(3.) The petitioner made various representations from time to time to consider her request and prayed for the requisite salary and all pensionary benefits including interest on the due salary.