Disposed

Shri Samarth New Education Society Thr. Its President Nanakram Magandas Gajipure and Oths v. Ku. Pushpa D/O Shantilal Dakhane (Maiden Name) Sau. Pushpa Suryawanshi (After Marriage) and Oths

Bombay HC17 Aug 2012CAW/2155/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review application, the High Court recalled an order dated 27/7/2012 to ensure the School Tribunal independently assesses the case on merits. The Court mandated payment of arrears and future dues by the management before the Tribunal hearing, otherwise restoring the prior order, and fixed a three-month deadline for the Tribunal's decision.

What did the court decide?

Recalled order dated 27/7/2012; directed payment of Rs. 5,75,000/- for proceedings before School Tribunal; disposed of application on merits.

Shri Samarth New Education Society Thr. Its President… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1708ca2155.12

¶2

1/4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2155 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6100 OF 2011

¶5

(Shri Samarth New Education Society and others vs. Ku. Pushpa d/o Shantilal Dakhane and others)

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of

¶7

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶8

Shri S.K. Pardhy, Advocate for applicants/ petitioners.

¶9

Shri A.Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for respondent no.1. Shri D.M. Kale, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶10

CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.

¶11

DATED : AUGUST 17, 2012

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel for the rival parties on this review application.

¶13

Shri Pardhy, the learned Counsel for the review applicants i.e. Management, in the wake of the observations made by this Court in the order dated 27/7/2012 has been fair to admit that the applicants did not take the operative order dated 23/4/2012 of this Court seriously and that is why the

¶14

1708ca2155.12

¶15

2/4

¶16

said order dated 27/7/2012 came to be passed. He, however, expresses apology on behalf of the applicants for not seriously taking the orders of the Court as they were required to be and then submits that now the applicants would pay the entire arrears of the amount towards subsistence allowance which, according to him, comes to Rs.4,31,151/- till 31/7/2012. He then argues that since Rules provide payment of 100% allowance, the applicants will have to pay the next three months' salary to the respondent no.1 since School Tribunal is likely to decide the matter within three months. Thus, adding the amount of salary of three months, the total amount with costs of Rs.4000/-, which the applicants are ready to pay, comes to Rs.5,75,000/-. The said extra amount of Rs.4,000/- can be said to be towards costs of this application in order that the applicants know that the Court has imposed costs for all that has happened.

¶17

Per contra, Shri Jibhkate, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 employee, also fairly states that since in the original judgment dated 23/4/2012, leave to hold enquiry was granted by this

¶18

1708ca2155.12

¶19

Court, the respondent no.1 would not come in the way of the said liberty granted by this Court pending decision of matter on merits and, therefore, would welcome completion of enquiry, which is half-way through, but then payment of subsistence allowance and 100% salary after the specified period should be a pre-condition and additional costs of Rs.1 lakh should also be saddled on the Management.

¶20

I find that both the learned Counsel for the parties have been very fair looking to the above statements made by them. As a matter of fact, this Court could have taken a serious view of the matter since it is seen that there has been a hoodwinking of the orders. But then since the judgment was made on merits of the matter, to have adjudication on the charges levelled against the employee by the Management and since Management wanted that the enquiry should be completed, this Court refrains from making any order for extra amount of costs of Rs.1 lakh as prayed by Shri Jibhkate. At the same time, costs of Rs.4000/- offered by Shri Pardhy would subserve the purpose for which the costs are being imposed.

¶21

1708ca2155.12

¶22

4/4

¶23

In view of the above, I make the

¶24

following order :

¶25

O r d e r

¶26

The order dated 27/7/2012 passed by this Court is recalled. The School Tribunal shall not be influenced by the observations made in the said order and shall independently assess the entire matter. The parties shall now appear before the School Tribunal on 22/8/2012 on which date Shri Pardhy, the learned Counsel for the applicants/Management, undertakes to make the said payment of Rs.5,75,000/- to the respondent no.1. It is made clear that in case of this default in making the payment, the order dated 27/7/2012 passed by this Court shall stand restored without reference to this Court.

¶27

The School Tribunal shall decide the matter within three months.

¶28

The civil application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

khj

Shri Samarth New Education Society Thr. Its President Nanakram Magandas Gajipure and Oths v. Ku. Pushpa D/O Shantilal Dakhane (Maiden Name) Sau. Pushpa Suryawanshi (After Marriage) and Oths

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Samarth New Education Society Thr. Its President Nanakram Magandas Gajipure and Oths v. Ku. Pushpa D/O Shantilal Dakhane (Maiden Name) Sau. Pushpa Suryawanshi (After Marriage) and Oths

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

V.I.D.C., Thr Exe. Eng. Lower Wardha Project Division, Wardha Vs Rambhau S/O Govindrao Kamble and Others

Smt Deokabai Samadhan Sultane Vs Shaligram Pundlik Bhise

Shri Samarth New Education Society Thr. Its President Nanakram Magandas Gajipure and Oths Vs Ku. Pushpa D/O Shantilal Dakhane (Maiden Name) Sau. Pushpa Suryawanshi (After Marriage) and Oths

Bhimshankar S/O Keshaorao Duddalwar Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Collector, Yavatmal and Another

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, through Its Executive Engineer Vs Mohd. Akhtar Mohd. Masud and 2 Others

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, through Its Executive Engineer Vs Totaram Laxman Nagwse and Antoher