Dismissed

Shivshakti Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Another v. Sushila Narayanrao Choukate and Another

Bombay HC30 Jul 2014WP/4675/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner-society challenged the School Tribunal's award of back-wages to a teacher reinstated after an accident. Court held inter-extraordinary jurisdiction regarding back-wages unnecessary as respondent was already reinstated, dismissing the writ petition but directing salary bill settlement.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioner undertakes to forward salary bills within four weeks for Education Officer decision.

Shivshakti Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

W.P.No.4675/2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4675 OF 2013

¶5

Shivshakti Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and anr.

¶6

..Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt.Sushila w/o Narayanrao Choukate & anr.

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Mr V.D.Gunale, Advocate for petitioners Mr M.V.Ghatge, Advocate for respondent No.1 Respondent No.2 served

¶11

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

¶12

DATE : 30th July 2014

¶13

PER COURT

¶14

The petitioner – Management has questioned the order dated 22^nd March 2013 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur Region, Latur in Appeal No.4/2012 preferred by respondent No.1 against alleged oral termination dated 7^th March 2011.

¶15

At the outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner – Management Shri Gunale invites attention of this Court to the fact that the respondent No.1 is already reinstated in service, therefore, challenge in the petition is restricted to the extent of payment of back-wages.

¶16

According to petitioner, the respondent No.1 was appointed on 7^th November 1992 and remained in service till she met with an accident on 10^th January 2011.

¶17

W.P.No.4675/2013

¶18

¶19

Petitioner submits that respondent No.1 produced fitness certificate that she was under treatment from 10^th January 2011 to 5^th March 2011 and sought joining of service. The learned Presiding Officer of School Tribunal having considered the same , tested the case of respondent No.1 of oral termination in the light of noncompliance of provisions of Rule 16 sub-rule (3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules 1981, has ordered reinstatement of respondent No.1 with back-wages.

¶20

So far as the issue of back-wages is concerned, Shri Gunale submits that the petitioner – Management never terminated the services of the respondent No.1. In fact, it is respondent No.1 chose to remain absent voluntarily from the employment which has caused loss of studies to the students who are taking education in the school managed by the petitioner – society. He further submits that the perusal of the order impugned passed by the Tribunal does not reflect as to how the present respondent No.1 is entitled for back-wages. The sum and substance of submission of Shri Gunale is, the order of granting back-wages is passed in stereo type manner without evaluating entitlement of respondent No.1 and without recording reasons thereof. He submits that in that view of the matter, the order passed by the Tribunal to the extent of granting back-wages is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶21

W.P.No.4675/2013

¶22

¶23

While countering the above submissions, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 Mr Ghatge submits that the respondent No.1 met with serious accident on 10^th January 2011 and was hospitalized up to 5^th March 2011. She reported for duty on 7^th March 2011 and though she was permitted to resume the work, however, was not permitted to sign the muster which prompted her to file the appeal against alleged termination. He submits that the fact that the respondent No.1 who was attending the duty, will also be gathered from the report submitted by the Block Education Officer. Appropriate inference on the said issue can be drawn from the reply submitted by the petitioner before the Tribunal. He submits that the respondent No.1 is in employment since 1992 and but for the alleged default, no adverse record was brought to the notice of the Tribunal so as to disentitle her from back-wages.

¶24

Learned Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the services of respondent No.1 are approved by the Education Officer.

¶25

After marshalling the facts and analysing the evidence, it is noticed that the contentions of Shri Gunale, learned Counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected as the order granting back-wages appears to be as a consequence order of reinstatement passed by the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal has rightly taken into account employment of the respondent No.1 since 1992 with the petitioner and the fact that she met with an accident and production of appropriate fitness certificate to that effect. The

¶26

W.P.No.4675/2013

¶27

¶28

Tribunal has dwelt upon the controversy and partially blamed the Management for non-complying the requirement of Rule 16 subrule (3) of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981, however, in my opinion, the Tribunal while directing to pay back-wages to respondent No.1 has kept in mind the status of respondent No.1 of that of an approved teacher.

¶29

As the respondent No.1 is already reinstated on 17^th October 2013, in my opinion, no case for interference in extra-ordinary jurisdiction qua payment of back-wages to respondent No.1 made out. As such petition fails and same is dismissed.

¶30

The petitioner – Management undertakes to forward the salary bills of the present respondent No.1 to which respondent No.1 has also agree to co-operate, within four weeks from today to the respondent No.2 - Education Officer. The Education Officer is directed to decide the same within a period of four weeks from the receipt of the same.

¶31

(vvr/4675.13wp)

Shivshakti Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Another v. Sushila Narayanrao Choukate and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivshakti Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Another v. Sushila Narayanrao Choukate and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Eknath Talele. Vs Sunita Sharad Pendase through Lrs. Sharad Dhondupant Pendse and Others.

Mahesh Ramchandra Tambe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Faisalbeen Ahmed Chaus and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jarasandh Baburao Wadane Vs Ashok Kerappa Sangshetty and Others

Haji Mohammad Fasiuddin Ashamiya, Thr. L.Rs. Bismilla Be Haji Mohd and Ors. Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jayakwadi Project and Anr.

Sushma Dattatray Pulchuwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others