Disposed

Subhash Papat Bondre v. Sakharwadi Shikshan Sanatha Sakharwadi and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Jul 2005WP/2192/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On consent of counsel, the High Court determined the petitioner's employment status under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act, ordered payment of differential salary, and allowed a fresh appeal before the School Tribunal without barring limitation.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay differential salary; agreement to treat pending appeal before School Tribunal as filed within limitation.

Subhash Papat Bondre Vs Sakharwadi Shikshan… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.2192 OF 2005

¶5

 Subhash Papat Bondre ..Petitioner.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

 Sakharwadi Shikshan Sanstha & Ors...Respondents.

¶8

 Mr.S.D.Thokade for the Petitioner.

¶9

 Mr.Sanjeev Kadam for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM :A.P.SHAH &

¶11

DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,J.

¶12

 22nd July, 2005.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

 Rule, made returnable forthwith.

¶15

 By consent of the learned counsel appearing
 on behalf of the parties, following order is
 passed:

¶16

 i) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 agree and confirm that

¶17

 the Petitioner’s appointment dated 10th

¶18

¶19

 August, 2001 was not under Government
 Resolution dated 13th October, 2000 and
 therefore, the Petitioner be treated as
 teacher appointed under the Maharashtra
 Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
 Service) Regulation Act, 1977;

¶20

 ii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 undertake to pay the
 differential amount of salary of the
 Petitioner at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per
 month from the date of his appointment i.e.
 10th August, 2001 till 16th July, 2004 within
 one month from the date of this order. The
 Petitioner agrees to accept this amount
 without prejudice to his right to challenge
 the order of termination;

¶21

 iii) The Petitioner is free to challenge the order
 of termination under Section 9 of the
 Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
 (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977
 before the School Tribunal. If such appeal
 is filed by the Petitioner within four weeks
 from today, the point of limitation shall not
 be raised by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the

¶22

¶23

 School Tribunal shall treat the said appeal
 as being filed within the period of
 limitation since the Petitioner was
 prosecuting the remedy in wrong forum. If
 such appeal is filed by the Petitioner before
 the School Tribunal, the Tribunal may dispose
 of the appeal as expeditiously as possible
 and preferably within a period of six months

¶24

 from the date of filing of the appeal.

¶25

 iv) The Education Officer is at liberty to take
 action against Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in
 terms of Clause (2) of the Government

¶26

 Resolution dated 26th July, 2001.

¶27

 The Petition stands disposed of.

Subhash Papat Bondre v. Sakharwadi Shikshan Sanatha Sakharwadi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Papat Bondre v. Sakharwadi Shikshan Sanatha Sakharwadi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaiwant Waman Gaitonde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Limbaji Maruti Tapase Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jaiwant Waman Gaitonde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kulbhushan Kushaba Awati Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mathoshri Gramin Vikas Mandal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jizamata Mahila Samaj Mandal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.