Allowed

Tara Marotrao Chilwalwar (Sau. Tara K Parlewar) v. Shriram Swami Shikshan Sanstha Thr. Its Secty. and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC1 Aug 2012WP/1467/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Management of an educational society to compute and release pensionary benefits and a revised pay bill for a retired Headmistress, rejecting the Management's claim that her promotion order was cancelled.

What did the court decide?

Directed computation and release of pensionary benefits and revised pay bill within two months; awarded costs of Rs. 50,000.

Tara Marotrao Chilwalwar (Sau. Tara K… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1/7

¶2

0108wp1467.12.odt

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1467 OF 2012

¶5

Tara Marotrao Chilwalwar (Tara Keshao Parlewar) :: :: PETITIONER -: Versus:- Shriram Swami Shikshan Sanstha and others. :: RESPONDENTS

¶6

..................................................................................................................................... Mr. H. A. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Prashant Gade, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. D. P. Thakre, A. G. P. for respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

¶7

CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & M. T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 01 AUGUST, 2012

¶8

P. C.

¶9

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the Writ Petition and all annexures thereto. The only request that the petitioner makes in this Writ Petition is to direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to forward revised pay bill from 21/11/1992 to 31/12/2006 in the admissible pay scale and the revised pension should be computed in accordance with the post and status that the petitioner enjoyed during this tenure.

¶10

2/7

¶11

0108wp1467.12.odt

¶12

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was an employee of respondent No.1-Society. She worked with respondent No.2-School from 01/7/1982 till 31/12/2006, on which date she retired.

¶13

She has, in para No.2 of the Writ Petition, stated as under.:“ ...........The respondent no.1 is a society registered under Societies Registration Act, so also is a public trust registered under and governed by the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The respondent no.1 Society administers and manages two schools in the name and styled “Shriram Swami Vidya Mandir High School” and “Swami Sitaramdas High School”. Both the schools are recognized and are admitted to grant from the State Exchequer. As per mandate of Rule 12 r/w Schedule F, a common seniority list of both the schools is to be maintained.”

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that her initial appointment was that of Assistant Teacher. Thereafter, she acquired qualifications which made her eligible for promotional post and in terms of those qualifications, the petitioner came to be promoted and appointed as Headmistress by an order dated 21/11/1992, a copy of which is at Annexure-II issued by respondent No.1-Society. The petitioner has been promoted in the vacant post of Headmistress in respondent No.1-

¶15

3/7

¶16

0108wp1467.12.odt

¶17

Society’s Swami Sitaramdas High School.

¶18

Not only this, but, one teacher Pranoti Kalamkar was aggrieved by the order of promotion of the petitioner and preferred an Appeal before the School Tribunal, Nagpur, which came to be dismissed on 13/4/1998. A Writ Petition challenging that order was admitted by this Court on 06/7/1998, however, this Court did not grant any interim relief and ultimately that Writ Petition came to be disposed of as infructuous on 16/6/2008. In the meanwhile, the petitioner served as Headmistress and retired on her attaining the age of superannuation.

¶19

All that the petitioner requesting throughout is that the salary admissible to the post of Headmistress in terms of the Government Resolution be made applicable to her and that on the basis of her promotional orders, her pay be fixed and pensionary and other benefits be released. It appears that the petitioner submitted a representation to the Education Officer for granting her benefits and that Officer by orders dated 15/12/2008, 11/02/2009 and 17/4/2009 directed the first respondent-Society to submit revised proposal as her promotion had attained finality. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 challenged these orders by filing a Writ Petition in this Court, being No. 2363 of 2009, which was dismissed by this Court on 04/11/2009. The

¶20

4/7

¶21

0108wp1467.12.odt

¶22

Court, while dismissing the said Writ Petition had to observe thus.:-

¶23

“ 4. In the background of refusal of the School Tribunal to interfere in the promotion order granted in favour of respondent no.2, the Education Officer has issued impugned directions.

¶24

5. Admittedly, the post of Headmistress had remained vacant, as, due to pendency of a case before School Tribunal, it was not filled in, and only In-charge Headmistress looked after the duties.

¶25

6. It is a clear case where respondent no.2 was denied her rightful claim of performing duties.

¶26

7. It is not shown that the Management has been directed to pay from its resource salary and allowances of the respondent no.2. All that has been directed is to prepare salary bills and furnish those, in order that difference in pay and allowances can be calculated, necessary fixation can be done and paid by the Pay Unit and appropriate fixation of pension can be done.

¶27

8. In these premises, all that the Management wants is to grind its axe, as it wanted to support other candidate, and not the respondent no.2. The Management is to seek a pound of flesh to which they are not entitled.....”

¶28

It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner submits that

¶29

the Education Officer passed a fresh order on the basis of the directions

¶30

5/7

¶31

0108wp1467.12.odt

¶32

of the Deputy Director of Education and that order is dated 11/11/2010. In furtherance of this order, the Management had to take requisite steps so that the revised salary bills are forwarded to the Education Department and the petitioner receives the pensionary benefits. That order of the Department has not been complied with and thereafter the petitioner was knocking the doors either of the Deputy Director of Education or the Education Officer requesting them that having worked all these years in the promotional post and now retired, the petitioner’s pension be computed appropriately and accordingly so that she would not be deprived of the benefits in her old age.

¶33

It is very unfortunate that both the Officers, namely the Education Officer (Secondary) and the Deputy Director of Education, did not take any action on this representation and what the affidavits filed on their behalf now disclose is that the Management has intimated to them by a letter dated 13/7/2012, a copy of which is now filed during the pendency of this Writ Petition, that the petitioner’s promotion as Headmistress was cancelled by the Management and she was not relieved to join the promotional post, and consequently, she never joined her promotional post.

¶34

6/7

¶35

0108wp1467.12.odt

¶36

It is this very stand which is reiterated in a very guarded affidavit and submissions of respondent No.1.

¶37

After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perusing with their assistance the documents on record, we are of the opinion that this is an attempt by the first respondent-Management and the second respondent-School in trying to overreach the orders of this Court passed earlier and reproduced herein-above. In their endeavour to overcome and override the Court’s orders and directions and to nullify the provisions of the Act and Rules in relation to pension they are assisted by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶38

We do not see why the communication dated 13/7/2012 does not emanate from the first respondent-Management and the Management does not place that on record. Although the affidavit that is filed by respondent No.1-Management in this Writ Petition is dated 13/7/2012, it is not without coincidence that on the date of such an affidavit, the very communication, which has been addressed not to the petitioner but to the State Government and Statutory Authorities, comes on file of this Writ Petition and through an affidavit filed on 17/7/2012 on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶39

7/7

¶40

0108wp1467.12.odt

¶41

We are of the opinion that it is too late in the day for the Management and for the Department to take a stand that the petitioner was never promoted or that she was promoted but not relieved from her earlier posting or that she was promoted but that promotional order was cancelled. Each one of these statements are inconsistent and conflicting – to say the least. In these circumstances, we direct that from the available record and on the basis that the petitioner has been promoted as a Headmistress and having worked in the said post and with the same Management, the pensionary benefits be computed and the amount be released in her favour as expeditiously as possible and within a period of two months from today. In addition, we direct the first respondent-the Management to pay costs quantified at Rs.50,000/(Rs. Fifty thousand only) to the Petitioner, within a period of four weeks as it has tried every trick to stall her just and legitimate claim. It was not accepted although it was upheld by this Court. The Management’s defiance is clear from the record and which forced the Petitioner to approach this Court. Such acts of the Management need to be put down with a heavy hand so that just and legal dues is not withheld unjustifiably.

¶42

The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶43

JUDGE JUDGE

¶44

wwl

Tara Marotrao Chilwalwar (Sau. Tara K Parlewar) v. Shriram Swami Shikshan Sanstha Thr. Its Secty. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tara Marotrao Chilwalwar (Sau. Tara K Parlewar) v. Shriram Swami Shikshan Sanstha Thr. Its Secty. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Education Society, through Its President Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Education and Sports and 3 Others

Prakash Damodar Ruyarkar and 2 Ors. Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Dy. Secty/Municipal Secty. and Ors.

Ravindrakumar S/O Harikisanji Sarda Vs Sub-Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Amravati and Another

Dr. Mr. Brijkishor Madanmohan Gupta and Anr. Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Public and Works Dept. and Anr.

Madhukar Nagorao Mendhe Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Secty. and Ors.

Smt. Pushpa Ramshiromani Dwivedi and 2 Ors. Vs Keshav Balkrishna Kapshikar and 2 Ors.