DINKAR KESHAV BEDBKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant brought a suit for a declaration that the order dated January 30, 1964, issued by respondent No. 2(ii), the Secretary, State Board of Literature and Culture, terminating his services in the Vishwakosha Project at Wai, was illegal and void and that he continued to be in the services of respondent No. 1, the State of Maharashtra. The appellant contended, in the alternative, that he was appointed for a fixed period of five years and that; as his services were terminated prematurely, he was entitled to claim damages in the sum of Rs. 35,930, being the salary he would have drawn for the unexpired portion. He restricted this claim to Rs. 5,000 on the ground that he was not in a position to pay Court -fees 011 the full claim.

(2.) BY a resolution dated November 19, 1960, in the General Administration Department, the Government of Maharashtra established a 'State Board for Literature and Culture', for a period of five years in the first instance. The Board decided to compile an encyclopaedia in Marathi called 'Vishvakosh' and for that purpose a Vishwakosha Project Unit was established at Wai in the District of Satara. Mr. Laxmanshastri Joshi was appointed as Chairman of the Board.

(3.) ON September 20, 1963, the Secretary of the Board issued an order appointing one S. N. Athavale, who like the appellant was a Section Editor, to 'hold and manage the overall charge' of the Humanities Wing -. The office order states that the Vishwakosha Project was a time limit project and the work had therefore to be finished with expedition. The appointment of Athavale was apparently made in order to ensure expedition of work. Athavale's appointment as a Section Editor in charge of the Humanities Wing1 was not to the liking of the appellant and by a letter exh. 56 dated October 3, 1963, he protested to Athavale in regard to the directions given by the latter under office orders dated October 1, 1963. On the same date, that, is the 3rd, the appellant wrote a letter exh. 58 to the Chairman of the Board stating that he should be taken as working under protest. A long' correspondence thereafter followed between the appellant and Athavale and between the appellant and the Chairman of the Board. The gist of that correspondence is that the appellant resented Athavale's appointment but that the Chairman felt that the appointment was justified and that the appellant had no reason to complain about it.