Petitioner sought PIL directions for implementing CFSR and RTE acts for contract school teachers and paying provident fund. The High Court held that since aggrieved persons can approach the court individually, the PIL was not entertained and was dismissed.
None. PIL dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(PILL 12761 of 2015)
vat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) No.12761 OF 2015
Fr. Walter Saldhana, S.J. & Anr. Vs.
...Petitioners
Pune Cantonment Board and Anr. …Respondents
Mr.Nitin P. Deshpande for Petitioner None for Respondents
CORAM : V. M. KANADE &
Dr. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : OCTOBER 9, 2015
P.C. :
of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking the following reliefs.
“(a) that this Hon'ble Court may direct the Respondents to implement the applicability of the provisions of CFSR 1937 in respect of its primary teachers and staff on contract in its schools and subsequently, the provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009;
(b) that this Hon'ble court may make the same specifically applicable to the schools of all cantonment, Local Authorities and Municipal Corporations;
(c) that this Hon'ble Court may direct the Respondents to
1/3
(PILL 12761 of 2015)
pay the Provident Fund of all its contract employees from the date of applicability;
(d) interim relief seeking direction to the Respondents to refrain from discontinuing services of any of the contract employees in the Cantonments' Schools till the decision of this Hon'ble Court;
(e) The Hon'ble court may at its discretion take cognizance of and enforce suo-motu, obligation on all Public Authorities to rectify and remedy statutory irregularities, whenever brought to their notice through complaint or when irregularities come to the force or when information is provided under the RTI Act, to help prevent litigation;
(f) for costs;
(g) for such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.”
[Dr. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [ V. M. KANADE, J.]
Vaishali Tikam
2/3
(PILL 12761 of 2015)
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to the Cantonment Board to implement CFSR and RTE regulations and pay Provident Fund to contract teachers should be entertained when aggrieved i
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Fr. Walter Saldhana
Pune Cantonment Board
V. M. Kanade
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
