Dismissed

Gajanan Bahuudhyashiya Shikshan Sanstha Latur Thr President and Anr. v. Satyabhamabai Govind Mirkale and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Aug 2012WP/3866/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the issuance of an execution attachment warrant by the School Tribunal for backwages due to a teacher. The High Court accepted the petitioners' undertaking to pay the agreed sum and set aside the attachment warrant.

What did the court decide?

The attachment warrant was quashed. The petitioners are directed to pay Rs. 1,39,382/- within two months. The School Tribunal is directed to consider rival claims and determine the exact sum due and d

Gajanan Bahuudhyashiya Shikshan Sanstha Latur Thr… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 wp 3866.12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3866 OF 2012

¶4

Shri Gajanan Bahuudyashiya Shikshan Sanstha, Nanded Naka, Latur, Through its President, Mr. Sikandar S/o Gyanoba Gangane, Age : 54 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Mahadeo Nagar, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.

¶5

Kailaswashi Annasaheb Patil Primary School, Balaji Nagar, Latur through Headmistress, Sunanda D/o Ganpatrao Balwad, Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Service as Headmistress, R/o Kailaswashi Annasaheb Patil Primary School, Balaji Nagar, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur. .. Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Satyabhamabai W/o Govind Mirkale, Age : Major, Occu. : Household, R/o Sale Galli, Behind Virhanuman Mandir, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.

¶8

The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur. .. Respondents

¶9

2 wp 3866.12

¶10

Shri M. V. Ghatge, Advocate h/f Shri B. N. Godegaonkar, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶11

Shri Ganesh J. Kore, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Shri Ashwin V. Hon, Advocate h/f Shri V. D. Hon, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

¶12

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 21ST AUGUST, 2012.

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶14

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing.

¶15

The husband of present respondent No. 1 had filed an appeal before the School Tribunal. The same was allowed. The School Tribunal set aside the order of termination dated 24th June, 1996 and directed that the present petitioners shall pay backwages from 24.06.1996 to 16.08.1999 and thereafter the Education Officer was directed to pay the salary to the present respondent No. 1 in the untrained teachers scale till the husband of the present respondent No. 1 acquires D. Ed. qualification and thereafter in regular scale.

¶16

As the order of payment of backwages and the arrears was not complied, the present respondent No. 1 filed Misc.

¶17

3 wp 3866.12

¶18

Application No. 13/2010 for executing the said order. In the said application the present respondent No. 1 claimed the salary of her husband who is original decree holder for a period from 15.06.1994 along with the additional annual grade increments. The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal passed an order below Exhibit 1 thereby issuing attachment warrant. The said order is assailed by the management in the present writ petition.

¶19

Shri Ghatge, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that, the present respondent No. 1 claimed an amount more than what was granted by the School Tribunal in the appeal. In the appeal the School Tribunal allowed the backwages from the date of termination i. e. since 24.06.1996 and the management was liable to pay the amount from 24.06.1996 to 16.08.1999 as the claim of the respondent No. 1 itself was illegal, the warrant of attachment could not have been issued for the amount allegedly claimed from 1994.

¶20

Shri Ghatge, the learned counsel on instructions of petitioner, who is present in the Court submits that, as per the order of School Tribunal, the petitioners are liable to pay Rs. 1,39,382/- to the present respondent No. 1 and the petitioners

¶21

4 wp 3866.12

¶22

would pay the same within a period of two months and the petitioners would deposit the said amount before the School Tribunal. The respondent No. 1 can withdraw the said amount. The said statement is accepted as an undertaking to this Court.

¶23

Shri Kore, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that, even the Education Officer has not paid the amount as directed by the School Tribunal, which the Education Officer is liable to pay since 17.08.1999 till 14.07.2006 i. e. the date when the original decree holder died.

¶24

Shri Hon, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that he could not get the instructions from the Education Officer.

¶25

The judgment and order of the School Tribunal in appeal bearing No. 97/2004 has became final and the same is binding on all the parties. In view of the said judgment and order, even the decree holder cannot claim the amount from 1994. The management is liable to pay the amount to the respondent No. 1 from 24.06.1996 upto 16.08.1999 and thereafter the Education Officer is liable to pay the amount.

¶26

5 wp 3866.12

¶27

There is some variance in the calculations made by the present petitioners and the respondent No. 1 in respect of said amount. The petitioners state that, they are liable to pay an amount of Rs. 1,39,382/- to the respondent No. 1 as per the judgment in appeal passed by the School Tribunal. Whereas, the respondent No. 1 claims an amount of Rs. 1,51,762/- as an amount due from the management as per the judgment in appeal.

¶28

The School Tribunal shall consider the rival claim in respect of the amount due. The difference is of Rs. 12,380/- and shall pass an order directing the management to pay the particular sum of the amount as backwages from 24.06.1996 to 16.08.1999. The petitioner has already undertaken to pay Rs. 1,39,382/- for the said period within a period of two (2) months from today. The School Tribunal shall decide the exact amount after taking into consideration the rival contentions.

¶29

The Education Officer shall also pay the amount to the respondent No. 1 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two (2) months.

¶30

6 wp 3866.12

¶31

The impugned order passed by the School Tribunal below Exhibit 01 dated 23.09.2011 in M. A. No. 13/2010 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in above terms, however, with no order as to costs.

¶32

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶33

bsb/Aug. 12

Gajanan Bahuudhyashiya Shikshan Sanstha Latur Thr President and Anr. v. Satyabhamabai Govind Mirkale and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajanan Bahuudhyashiya Shikshan Sanstha Latur Thr President and Anr. v. Satyabhamabai Govind Mirkale and Anr.

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

Gmidc Aurangabad through Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division Latur Vs Sunil Vithal Chole and Anr.

Murgappa Chanappa Holkunde Died Lrs.Nagappar.M. Vs Basappa Veerpaksgappa Holkunde and Others.

Gmidc Aurangabad through Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Divn Latur Vs Namdeo Shivram Chole and Anr.

Mohan Annasaheb Deshmukh Vs Parvatihbai Vittalrao Ingale and Ors.

Mohan Eknath Upasani Vs Shri Saibaba Sansthan Vishwasta Vyavastha, Shirdi

Bhaskar Deorao Jadhav Vs Nandabai Vijay Wagh and Anr.