Allowed

Sharad Baburao Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC16 Feb 2015WP/1787/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the respondents' order negating the School Tribunal's reinstatement directives. The Court directed the petitioner's reinstatement to be treated as permanent from the initial appointment date for seniority and retirement benefits, while noting no backwages were awarded for the interim gap.

What did the court decide?

Order set aside; petitioner reinstated with all consequential benefits treated as permanent from date of appointment; no backwages awarded for interim period.

Sharad Baburao Patil Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1 wp 1787.14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1787 OF 2014

¶4

Sharad Baburao Patil .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶7

Shri Bhausaheb S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri A. S. Shinde, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri B. S. Deokar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶8

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND V. L ACHLIYA, JJ. DATE : 16TH FEBRUARY, 2015.

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 03rd September, 1997. The approval was granted to the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner was terminated on 28.10.2003. The petitioner assailed the order of termination. The School Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the order of oral termination dated 28.10.2003. The respondent No. 4 reinstated the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher and all consequential benefits including continuity of service and difference in salary was ordered. The learned counsel submits that, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities for

¶11

2 wp 1787.14

¶12

implementation of the said order and to grant approval. The respondent granted approval with conditions and even ordered that the petitioner’s service from 28.01.2003 to 24.03.2008 be considered as continuous service and be paid backwages. According to the learned counsel, the respondents negatived the claim of the petitioner though directed by the School Tribunal.

¶13

The learned counsel for the management and the authority do not dispute the fact that, the order of the School Tribunal is not challenged.

¶14

The school tribunal has passed the following order.

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The appeal is allowed.

¶17

The order of oral termination dated 28.10.2003 of the appellant is hereby set aside.

¶18

The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant on the post of Assistant Teacher within 40 days along with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and difference in salary.

¶19

No order as to costs.

¶20

It would be seen that, the petitioner has been granted continuity in service with all consequential benefits including

¶21

3 wp 1787.14

¶22

difference in salary. In the light of that, the appointment of the petitioner will have to be considered from 03.09.1997 as permanent employee and continuous one for the purpose of seniority and all other benefits. However, the petitioner is not awarded any backwages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. Except the said fact that the petitioner would not be entitled for the backwages from the date of termination till the date of order of School Tribunal, the petitioner is entitled for all other benefits such as continuity in service from the date of appointment of the petitioner with the respondent institution and the said service from the date of his appointment shall be counted for other benefits such as increment, fixation of pay and salary and all other retiral benefits.

¶23

The impugned order as such is set aside. The writ petition accordingly is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. No costs.

¶24

V. L ACHLIYA, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶25

bsb/Feb. 15

Sharad Baburao Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharad Baburao Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Satish Dnyaneshwar Ghodke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shankar Jadhav Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Dattatraya Narsing Trimukhe Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Dairy Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Chandrakant Madhavrao Bande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prabhatsing Gemnya Padvi Vs the Union of India and Others

Shaikh Ruksana Maheboob Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others