Remanded

Mrs. Prasanna Nair and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Dec 2014WP/5376/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, teachers paid untrained scales, claimed trained status due to correspondence B.Ed. from Annamalai University. Respondent contended such degrees unrecognized post-1989. Court, citing lack of documentary proof and representing management, directed respondent to examine details and pass reasoned order within six months. Petition disposed without merit decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to submit comprehensive representation with documents; Respondent No.2 to call records, hear parties, and pass reasoned order on pay-scale within six months.

Mrs. Prasanna Nair and Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

5376.98-wp.sxw

¶2

1/7

¶3

`IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5376 OF 1998

¶5

Mrs.Umadevi Nair.

¶6

Mrs.Reena Nair,

¶7

All Asst. Teachers working in Guru Nanak High School, Kurla Camp, Ulhasnagar- 421 004. (District Thane). … Petitioners.

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Maharashtra (Through the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Department of Education & Employment, Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400 032.

¶10

Director of Education, Central Buildings, Pune- 411 001.

¶11

Punjab Sevak Sabha, Kurla Camp, Ulhasnagar- 421 004. (District Thane).

¶12

Guru Nanak High School, Kurla Camp, Ulhasnagar- 421 004, (District Thane) ... Respondents.

¶13

M.Kale with S.M.Sharma i/b. M/s.M.P.Vashi & Associate for the petitioner.

¶14

V.N.Sagare, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶15

5376.98-wp.sxw

¶16

2/7

¶17

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.

¶18

DATED : 4th December 2014.

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER NARESH PATIL, J.)

¶20

The petitioner Nos.2 and 4 contend that they were appointed as Teachers in the respondent school. As salary in accordance with the scale was not paid, a writ petition was filed in this court. The said petition, according to the petitioners, was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 9^th September 1998. It is the contention of the petitioners that against the said judgment and order the management filed special leave petition in the Supreme Court which was summarily rejected. In para-3 of the petition, it is contended that earlier the High Court had directed that the Education Officer should work out the difference in the salary payable to the petitioners and other members of the staff. However, while calculating the difference in salary, the petitioners were treated as unqualified teachers. The petitioners were paid according to the pay-scale attributed to the untrained teachers. It is the case of the petitioners that they acquired B.Ed. Degree by correspondence course in the year 1992-93 from Annamalai University. By communication dated 11^th August 1992 the petitioners had informed the management that they had acquired B.Ed. degree and submitted certificate to that effect. The petitioners claimed to have made representation to the management but they were not paid salary according to the prescribed pay-scale attributed to the trained teachers.

¶21

3/7 5376.98-wp.sxw

¶22

As the petitioners were not paid salary in accordance with the prescribed pay-scale, the petitioners preferred this petition seeking directions accordingly.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed reliance on judgment of this Court in the case of Anjuman K. Islam v. Zulekha M. Hussain , reported in 2001 (1) Bom.C.R. 556 in support of his submission that the degree conferred by the Annamalai University is recognized in the State of Maharashtra. Accordingly, he submitted that the petitioners ought to have been treated as trained teachers. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners stood retired by the year 1999.

¶24

On behalf of respondent- State an affidavit-in-reply has been filed. In para-6 of the affidavit it is contended as under:

¶25

“6. With reference to paragraphs 5, 6 and 7, I say that the petitioners are not treated as qualified teachers to receive the salary as is prescribed in the Rules of 1981. I say that the trained teachers are required to obtain B.Ed. From the recognized and approved University. I further say that the State Government had issued a circular that B.Ed. by correspondence cannot be obtained for the purpose of claiming the scale from the Schools. I say that Annamalai University is not approved of by the State Government and as such any B.Ed. obtained by the Petitioners by correspondence course is not recognized by the State Government. As a matter of fact, the Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad had issued a circular informing all concerned that candidates who have sought B.Ed. admission of Annamalai University before 22^nd November, 1989 only would be considered

¶26

5376.98-wp.sxw

¶27

4/7

¶28

for the purpose of treating them as B.Ed. I will refer to the said circular when produced. In so far as the petitioners are concerned, the petitioners seem to have passed B.Ed. Examination on 10-1-1992 from Annamalai University. The Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad by his order has held that they are not considered B.Ed. since they have passed the examination from Annamalai University by correspondence and they have not submitted proof of their having joined the said University before 22^nd November, 1989 being the cut off date. The copy of the said order is annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit-1 and the Marathi version is annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit-2 . Similarly the Section Officer, Maharashtra Government in his letter dated 11-2-1997 has confirmed that the persons obtaining B.Ed. degree of Annamalai University through correspondence course are not to be recognized for appointment as teachers if they have not joined that University prior to 22^nd November, 1989. The letter dated 11-2-1997 is annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit-3 . In view of the aforesaid Government orders, the petitioners are not entitled to receive the trained scale.”

¶29

By communication dated 22^nd November 1989, the Assistant Secretary, Maharashtra Government informed the Director of Education (Higher Education), Maharashtra State as under:

¶30

“

¶31

It is hereby declared that earlier govt. letters dated 4/1/88, 21.2.89 & 21.3.89 on the subject addressed to above are treated as cancelled.

¶32

It is further decided that the Govt. will recognise the Services of the following teacher from date of obtaining B.Ed. degree.

¶33

a) Those who hold B.Ed degree of Annamalai

¶34

5/7 5376.98-wp.sxw

¶35

University (Tamil nadu) at the time of their appointment as a teacher.

¶36

b) Those who have enrolled till today with Annamalai University (Tamil nadu) for obtaining the said degree course through correspondence.

¶37

The decision will be applicable to those teachers to whom the notices of termination of service have been served.”

¶38

The petitioners claim to have obtained B.Ed. degree qualification from Annamalai University in the year 1992-93. The question is as to whether the petitioner was not paid salary in accordance with the pay-scale applicable to the trained teachers and, if the petitioners were not paid, whether it was on the ground that the correspondence degree certificate conferred by the Annamalai University was not recognized after 22^nd September 1989. Para-18 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Anjuman K. Islam v. Zulekha M. Hussain (cited supra) reads as under:

¶39

“18. At the outset, it needs to be noticed that the letter dated 22nd November, 1989 does not purport to deal with the question as to whether the recognition of the B.Ed. course of Annamalai University by the correspondence method should be withdrawn. The subject of the letter is the regularisation of the appointment of this class of teachers who have passed the B.Ed from Annamalai University by the correspondence course so that the benefits which are available to teachers who have obtained their B.Ed from the statutory Universities in Maharashtra can be extended. The letter dated 22nd November, 1989 provides that the appointment of teachers who were appointed in regular service should be regularised if (i) they have already

¶40

5376.98-wp.sxw

¶41

6/7

¶42

obtained the B.Ed. degree from Annamalai University through the correspondence course or (ii) if until the date of the letter they had enrolled themselves or had registered for the purpose of the said course. The benefit of the said letter is also to be extended to those teachers who had previously been discharged from service or to whom notices of discharge had been issued under both Government Orders. In the affidavit which had been filed by the Deputy Educational Inspector in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court on 23rd February, 2000, it has been clarified that apart from this letter, there is no resolution or decision of the State Government withdrawing the recognition of Annamalai University correspondence course for the B.Ed. degree. The letter dated 22nd November, 1989 does not amount to a withdrawal of a recognition in any event. The purpose of the letter is to deal with the question of regularising the services of teachers who had either obtained the B.Ed degree from correspondence from the said University or had enrolled themselves from the said degree course prior to 22nd November, 1989 and of extending to them the service benefits given to teachers who have obtained the B.Ed degree from statutory Universities within the State.”

¶43

We find that the petitioners have not provided details of their service career, the appointment orders passed in their favour, copy of the B.Ed. degree certificate which the petitioners obtained from the Annamalai University and the date on which it was obtained. The petitioner has made reference to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the petition filed by them. We do not find copy of the same annexed with this petition. Though this petition was filed in the year 1998 and was pending since then, the petitioners have not taken

¶44

7/7 5376.98-wp.sxw

¶45

reasonable efforts to place on record necessary material to seek relief as prayed for.

¶46

In the facts of the case, we find that the necessary details are required to be furnished to the appropriate authority. The management of the school is not represented before us today. However, in the facts of the case, the issue raised by the petitioners, in respect of grant of salary in accordance with the pay-scale applicable to the trained teachers, requires consideration on the basis of presentation of full and complete details and the necessary documents and in view of the judgment of this Court in Anjuman K. Islam v. Zulekha M. Hussain (cited supra).

¶47

We, therefore, observe that the petitioners are entitled to file comprehensive representation to respondent No.2 within four weeks from today. We direct that in case a comprehensive representation giving complete details and by annexing necessary documents submitted to respondent No.2 then respondent No.2 shall call for records, hear necessary parties and pass a reasoned order in respect of pay-scale of the petitioners. Respondent No.2 shall make endeavour to dispose of the said representation as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of receipt of representation. We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. With this observation and direction, petition is disposed of. Rule is partly made absolute. No costs.

¶48

(A.P. BHANGALE, J.)

¶49

(NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶50

Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S..

Mrs. Prasanna Nair and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Prasanna Nair and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Dayanand Baliram Bhandari Vs the Chairman, Caste Scrutiny Committee and Ors.

Mumbai Seema Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Prakash Engineers and Infraprojects (P) Limited. Vs the Mumbai Municipal Corporation through the Municipal Commissioner and Anr.

Smt. Vimal Vikas Keni Vs Thane Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Devidas S. Shetty Vs Thane Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Chandrakant Baburao Gondhali Vs Dy. Director of Social Welfare Pune