Allowed

Rajkumar Bandappa Malbhage v. the President Vidyamrut Shikshan Prasarak Mandal

Bombay HC10 Jul 2014WP/1532/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding salary arrears, the petitioner, an unqualified Assistant Teacher, challenged his oral termination. The Court observed that the school received full government grant-in-aid and the post remained vacant during a period of stay in termination proceedings, thus directing the Education Officer to process and grant salary arrears.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Education Officer to grant arrears of salary to the petitioner from 20th June, 1995 to 29th April, 2000.

Rajkumar Bandappa Malbhage Vs the President Vidyamrut… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP1532.2001

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1532 OF 2001

¶5

Rajkumar s/o Bandappa Malbhage, Age : 27 years, Occu : Nil, R/o. Deoni, Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur. ...Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The President, Vidyamrut Shikshan Prasarak Mangal Deoni, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.

¶8

The Secretary, Vidyamrut Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Deoni, Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur.

¶9

The Head Master, Mata Nargis Datta Girls' High School, Deoni, Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur.

¶10

The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Latur. …. Respondents

¶11

Mr S. V. Warad, Advocate for petitioner Mr D. V. Tele, AGP for respondent/State Mr V. D. Gunale, Advocate for respondent No. 1 Mr D. N. Gikhe, Advocate for respondent No. 2

¶12

CORAM : N. W. SAMBRE, J. DATED : 10^th JULY, 2014.

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT: -

¶14

The petitioner claiming to have been appointed as an

¶15

Assistant Teacher with the respondent-Management by an order

¶16

dated 5th June, 1992, questions his oral termination dated 9th June,

¶17

1995 in Appeal before the School Tribunal, Aurangabad Division,

WP1532.2001

-2-

Aurangabad.

The said appeal came to be registered as Appeal No. 62 of 1995, in which, in addition to the Management and Headmaster, the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Latur, was also impleaded as party-respondent.

¶22

The said appeal came to be dismissed by an order dated 29th April, 2000. However, as the same was the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 3251 of 2000 in High Court, after setting aside the judgment of dismissal of appeal, the matter was remanded back to the School Tribunal, Aurangabad.

¶23

The School Tribunal, Aurangabad, thereafter granted fresh opportunity of hearing and again dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. As such, present petition.

¶24

This Writ Petition was admitted on 12th June, 2001. While admitting the said petition, this Court has passed the following order.

¶25

“Heard learned advocates for the parties.

¶26

Rule as far as the petition relates to the claim for arrears of salary.

No interim relief.

WP1532.2001

-3-

Sd/-

Judge”

In view of above referred observations made by this Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has canvassed arguments only so far as claim of arrears of salary. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, after the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher, the Education Officer (Secondary), Latur, has granted approval to the said appointment for the academic session 1993-94 by an order dated 29th April, 1994.

¶33

The learned Counsel for the petitioner as such submits that, the petitioner was continued by the Management from the academic session 1992 till the date of his oral termination dated 9th June, 1995.

¶34

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, since the petitioner's appointment was against an approved vacancy, he was entitled to continue in the services and draw salary of Assistant Teacher.

¶35

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, even though the petitioner was not holding necessary qualification as required but, at the relevant time he was holding qualification of

¶36

WP1532.2001

¶37

-4-

¶38

S.S.C. and C.T.C. i.e. Craft Teacher Course. He was entitled to continue in the service and was rightly continued in the service by the Management. He submits that, when initially he preferred an appeal before the School Tribunal, the said appeal was accompanied by an application for grant of stay. The School Tribunal, Aurangabad, has granted stay to the termination of present petitioner by an order dated 20th June, 1995 and the said order was honoured by the respondents. He submits that, though he was continued in service after 20th June, 1995 till the date of dismissal of his appeal before the School Tribunal, Aurangabad i.e. 21st October, 2000, the salary to which he was entitled, was not paid.

¶39

At the cost of repetition, he has invited attention of this Court to the fact that, the respondent-Management has started receiving 100% grant-in-aid from the academic sessions commenced from June-1993. According to petitioner, as his appointment was against a clear vacancy, he was entitled for drawing salary for a period from the date of stay granted in his favour i.e. on 20th June, 1995 till the decision of appeal dated 29th April, 2000.

¶40

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court to the submissions made by the Management in paragraph No. 7 of the reply, wherein the respondent-Management

¶41

WP1532.2001

¶42

-5-

¶43

submits that, since the petitioner worked in the respondent-School for a period from 22nd June, 1995 till 30th April, 2000 against a clear vacancy and the School was admissible grant-in-aid, his salary is liable to be paid by the Education Officer, Latur.

¶44

The Management has confined itself to the extent of granting relief qua payment of arrears from the Education Officer, Latur.

¶45

The Education Officer has filed a reply and has opposed the claim of the petitioner. Mr D. V. Tele, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent-State, has invited attention of this Court to the fact that, the qualification of the petitioner as S.S.C. and C.T.C. is not recognized under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules, 1981 framed thereunder. In fact, the petitioner ought not to have been appointed by the respondent-management as he was not qualified and according to respondents, the Education Officer is not duty bound to release the salary of unqualified teacher. The Education Officer has invited attention of this Court to the communication issued to the respondent-Management on 17th April, 1993 so as to demonstrate that the respondent-Management was put to notice not to appoint any untrained teacher in future. The learned

¶46

WP1532.2001

¶47

-6-

¶48

Assistant Government Pleader submits that, ordering payment of back wages to the present petitioner for a period which is claimed in the petition shall amount to grant of permission to the petitioner illegally as the petitioner and the respondent-Management were acting hands in glow. As such, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶49

Having gone through the observations made by the learned Tribunal in the order impugned, the learned Tribunal has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner on merits by holding that the appointment of the petitioner was on temporary basis in view of the fact that he was not holding appropriate qualification. As the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal, there was no question of granting any back wages in the said order. However, it is worth to note here that, there was interim order operating in favour of the petitioner from 20th June, 1995 and he was continued in service till the decision of his appeal No. 62 of 1995 by the School Tribunal i.e. on 29th April, 2000.

¶50

Subsequent to the decision of the School Tribunal, it appears that the services were discontinued as is apparent from the observations made by High Court while dealing with Writ Petition No. 3251 of 2000.

¶51

WP1532.2001

¶52

-7-

¶53

The fact that the petitioner was not holding requisite qualification is not in dispute, however, the notice is required to be taken of the fact that, the respondent - Education Officer has granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner for the academic session 1993-94. Considering the said act on the part of the Education Officer in granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner for the academic session 1993-94, the fact that the petitioner continued against a clear vacancy from the date of stay till the date of decision in appeal and the fact that the respondentManagement has started getting 100% grant-in-aid from the Stateexchequer, in my opinion, the case of the petitioner for granting arrears is required to be considered. It is also required to be taken note of the fact that, against the post, on which petitioner was appointed and continued in service by virtue of interim order, was not filled in by the respondent-Management till date of petitioner's termination i.e. 29th April, 2000.

¶54

The management has already forwarded the salary bills of the present petitioner to the Education Officer.

¶55

Having regard to the above referred observations, in my

¶56

opinion, the case of the petitioner for grant of arrears of salary is

¶57

WP1532.2001

¶58

required to be allowed, and as such, the respondent - Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Latur, is directed to decide and grant arrears of salary to the present petitioner from 20th June, 1995 to 29th April, 2000.

¶59

Rule made absolute in above terms. There shall be no

¶60

order as to costs.

¶61

Punde

Rajkumar Bandappa Malbhage v. the President Vidyamrut Shikshan Prasarak Mandal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Bandappa Malbhage v. the President Vidyamrut Shikshan Prasarak Mandal

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

Uttam Jija Dhakarge and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sahebrao Vithoba Pawar Vs Vithoba Ramkrishna Pawar and Others

Bhalchand Karbhari Lakhare and Ors. Vs G G Mavale , Asst Registrar Co-Op Societies Akole and Ors.

Narayan Ganpat Gaikwad Vs Ramdaya C.Kabra(Decd)Lrrs Lilawati R.Kabra and Ors.

President Shri Vasantrao Naik Shik.Pra.Man.and Anr. Vs Rajashree Laxmanrao Salve and Anr.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sambhaji Dashrath Patil and Another