H.W.Dhabe,J. - (1.)This is a writ petition in which the petitioner has prayed that the respondent Zilla Parishad should be directed to pay full wages from the date of his transfer i.e. 6-12-1985 to the date he was re-posted on his original post on 4-8-1986. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioner is working in the respondent Zilla Parishad as a stenographer since last 18 years. According to the petitioner, he is confirmed in the said post. By an order dated 6-12-1985, the petitioner was transferred from the post of stenographer to the post of senior assistant in the same pay-scale which he was drawing as a stenographer. The petitioner challenged the said order of transfer by a writ petition bearing No. 2625/1985, which was dismissed by this court on 7-2-1986. After the above writ petition was dismissed, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner under the rules of the Zilla Parishad. In the said appeal the Commissioner held that in view of the amendment to the relevant rules of the Zilla Parishad, he should make a suitable representation to the Zilla Parishad authorities. After the order of the Commissioner was passed, the petitioner filed another writ petition bearing No. 1164/1986, on the ground that at the time he filed the previous writ petition, he was not aware of the amendment under the relevant recruitment rules. His case was that by the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Recruitment) (Third Amendment) Rules, 1985, which came into force on 22-8-1985 against the Entry No. 3, relating to the District Service Class III (Ministerial) Grade III in column 4 under the heading "qualification for and Method of Appointment" a new rule was substituted in regard to the appointment and promotion to the post of senior assistant. Although under the original entry under Column 4, the temporary appointment by transfer of a stenographer to the post of senior assistant was permissible under the new rule introduced by the aforesaid amendment, such a transfer was not permissible because the said provision viz. the appointment by temporary transfer of a stenographer was not contained in the new rule.
(2.)When the petition came up for admission on 17-6-1986, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court held that the Commissioner had observed that the petitioner should move the Zilla Parishad in view of the amended rules. In view of the above observations made by the Commissioner, this Court did not entertain the aforesaid writ petition. The Court was informed that the petitioner had not joined the transferred post and that he was only on leave. In view of the above statement, this Court directed that the Zilla Parishad shall not enforce the impugned order of transfer till two months from the date of the order of this Court during which time the representation if any, made by the petitioner should be disposed of by the Zilla Parishad.
(3.)It appears that after the aforesaid judgment of this Court the petitioner made a representation to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad. After aforesaid representation was made, the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad passed an order on 25/27-7-1986 by which the petitioner was reposted in his original post of stenographer in the same capacity and scale of pay. Accordingly, the petitioner joined his original post of stenographer on 4-8-1986. The question however, to be considered was how the period of absence from 6-12-1985 to 4-8-1986 should be dealt with. This was so because according to the Zilla Parishad, the petitioner remained absent for that period. As per the order dated 20-11-1986 the petitioner was granted earned leave for 43 days with effect from 7-12-1985 to 18-1-1986 and leave without pay for 198 days with effect from 19-1-1986 to 4-8-1986. According to the Zilla Parishad such an order was passed taking a sympathetic view despite the fact that the petitioner had not filed any application for leave. Being aggrieved by the above order treating the intervening period as earned leave and leave without pay, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition in this Court.