Allowed

Yogendrasingh Shivalangsingh v. Head Master, Hindi Prachar Mandal'S High Scholl

Bombay HC12 Apr 2005WP/764/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition and writ application, the court directed school authorities to pay the petitioner back wages and bonus for early 1993, fix his pay at Rs.1400-2600, and grant consequential benefits, directing the State to ensure compliance.

What did the court decide?

Direct payment of back wages (June 12, 1993 to Aug 2, 1993) and bonus (1992-93); fixation of pay at Rs.1400-2600 with increments; consequential benefits.

Yogendrasingh Shivalangsingh Vs Head Master… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.764 of 1998

¶4

Shri Yogendrasingh Shivlingsingh ) residing at Rajaram Yadav Chawl, ) Behind Nandini Lad Hospital, ) Ulhasnagar-421 001. )..Petitioenr Versus 1. The Head Master, Hindi ) Pracher Mandal’s Hindi School ) Ramnagar, Dombivli (E), Dist. ) Thane. ) 2. The Secretary, ) Hindi Prachar Mandal, Ramnagar ) Dombivali (East) Dist. Thane ) 3. Hindi Prachar Mandal, Ramnagar ) Dombivali (Est), Dist. Thane ) through its Secretary, ) 4. Administrative Officer, ) Municipal School Board, Kalyan ) Municipal Corporation, Kalyan ) 5. Dy. Director of Education, ) Nashik Region,l Nashik ) 6. State of Maharashtra )..Respondents

¶5

Mr. M.V. Limaye with R.S. Apte, for the Respondents Mr. A.G.Kothari, for the Respondent No.2. Mr. A.P. Vanarshe, AGP for the Respondent No.6.

¶6

CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & S.P.KUKDAY, JJ. DATE : 12th April,2005

¶7

JUDGMENT (PER F.I. REBELLO, J.)

¶8

The services of the petitioner were terminated. An

¶9

. appeal	was	preferred.	That	came	to	. be	allo	we	d	by	order		dated
8th	April,	1993.	The	petitio	ner	was	initi	all	y	appo	inted		as
Assistant	Teac	her in	the	primary	sch	ool	with			effect	from		15th
June,	1988.	His	services	were	ter	minated	by			order	date	d	30th
March,	1989.	On	reopenin	g he	was	again		a	p	pointed	in		the
academic	year	1989-90.	The	appo	intmen	ts	were		c	ontinued	in		a
similar	manner.	It	was	the ca	se	of	the			petitioner	that		since
1988	he was	being	paid only	Rs.80	0/-.	It	wa	s		the c	ase	of	the
petitioner	that	he	was not	allowed	to	resu	me	o	n	duty	on		8th

¶10

July,	19	92. It	was	his cas	e also	that his	app	ointment	was
against		a clear	and per	manent	vacancy.	By the		impugned	order
the	learned	Tribunal	held	that	the	petitioner was		appointed	on
a	clea	r and pe	rmanent	vacancy	with	effect from	Jun	e, 1988	and
as	such	he bec	ame a	dee	med	permanent emp	loyee	and	for
non-comp	liance	of the	Rules	set	aside	the order		of term	ination
and		directed rein	statement	with	further	direction to		pay	the
difference		of emolum	ents in	cluding	pay	and allowan	ces	from	the
date	of	termination	of his	servi	ces ti	ll he is	rein	stated.	As
the	respond	ents failed	to	comply	with	some of	the	directions	a
Contempt		Petition	was	filed	being	Contempt Peti	tion	No.122	of
1996.		A learned	Judge	of	this	Court on 18t	h	June,	1996

¶11

recorded a statement that substantial payment had been made

¶12

except for a period of one month and 19 days.

¶13

. By the present petition the petitioner has prayed that

¶14

the	back	wages		for	per	iod	from	12th	June,	1993		to 2nd
August,	1993,	and	the	bonus	for	199	2-93,	be	paid	to	him	and to
fix	the	petitione	r’s	salary	in	the		pay	scale	of		Rs.1400-2600
and	give	him		benefits	of	total	9	incre	ments	upto	15th	June,

¶15

1997 by fixing his pay at the proper stage and grant him

¶16

consequential reliefs.

¶17

After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and considering the order of the Tribunal dated 8th April, 1993 we see no reason as to why the petitioner should not be

¶18

entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. We, therefore, pass

¶19

the following order;-

¶20

(i) The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are directed within 12 weeks from today to pay to the petitioner the back wages for

¶21

the period from 12th June, 1993 to 2nd August, 1993 and bonus

¶22

for 1992-93, if not paid already.

¶23

(ii)	T	he resp	ondent	s are furt	her direct	ed to fix	th	e
petitioner’s		pay	at	the	time	of	his	app	ointment	in	the		scale
of	Rs.1400	-2600/-	an	d to	give	him		all	the	increment	s wh	ich	he
is	entitled	to	inc	luding	revision	of		pay	scales	from	time		to
time	and	after	so	fixing	the	pay,	to	pay	and	pay	the		arrears
and	all	ot	her	conseq	uential	benef	its	ari	sing	therefro	m.		This

¶24

entire exercise should be completed within 12 weeks from

¶25

today.

¶26

(iii)	If the respo	ndent Nos.	1, 2 and	3 fail to	comply w	ith
the	above	directions	the	resp	ondent	NO.5	is		directed to	fix
the	petitioner’s	pay	and	incre	ments	in	term	s	aforestated	and
if	the respondent	Nos.	1	to	3 do	not	pay		the arrears	then to
deduct	the	same	from	the	grants	receiv	ed	by	the	respondents
other	than sa	lary	grants	and	to	pay	to	the	petitioner	all

¶27

benefits which he is entitled to within a period of six months

¶28

from today.

¶29

(iv) Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶30

(F.I. REBELLO, J.)

¶31

(S.P. KUKDAY, J.)

Yogendrasingh Shivalangsingh v. Head Master, Hindi Prachar Mandal'S High Scholl

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendrasingh Shivalangsingh v. Head Master, Hindi Prachar Mandal'S High Scholl

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Chandana M. Rege Vs the Principal, Ramnarain Ruia College of Arts and Science, Mumbai and Ors.

M/S. Setron Exports Vs the Cloth Markets and Shops Labour Board and 2 Ors.

Reprolite Papers India Pvt.Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Chandivali Abhilasha Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs Maharashtra Hsg. and Area Developement Authority

Chhotalal Hariram Trust and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Seeta R.Mahakal Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.