Dismissed

Abdul Jahir Abdul Hamid v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jun 2015WP/2774/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged his removal from service as a peon due to extortion by school secretary. Court dismissed petition, noting petitioner should approach appropriate forum to challenge removal rather than seek management takeover or unpaid salary via writ.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for takeover of school management and payment of arrears of salary dismissed; civil application disposed of.

Abdul Jahir Abdul Hamid Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

( 1 ) wp2774.05

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2774 OF 2005

¶4

`Abd` `Age` `R/o` `Maz`	`ul Jahir Abdul Hamid` `-44 years, Occu-Nil,` `.Ekbal Nagar, Near Madina` `id, Parbhani.`	`..`	`Petitioner`
	`Versus`
`1.`	`The State of Maharashtra.`	`..`	`Respondents`
`2.`	`The Zilla Parishad` `Through its Chief Executive Officer` `Parbhani.`
`3.`	`The Commissioner and` `Competent Authority Under the` `Persons with Disabilities` `[Equal Opportunities, Protection` `Of Rights and Full Participation]` `Act, 1995.` `Maharashtra State, Pune.`
`4.`	`The District Social Welfare Officer` `[Group-A]` `Zilla Parishad, Parbhani.`
`5.`	`Azad Education Society and` `Welfare Society,` `Through its Secretary Alisha Khan` `Naseem Manzil, Iqbal Nagar,` `Parbhani.`

¶5

( 2 ) wp2774.05

¶6

6. The Head Master, Rashtriya Residential Orthopaedically Handicapped Vidyalaya. Iqbal Nagar, Parbhani.

¶7

Mr.K.M. Nagarkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Tope, AGP for the respondent/State.

¶8

CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE &
A.M. BADAR,JJ.
DATED :23.06.2015

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER: A.V. NIRGUDE, J.]

¶10

1. Facts leading to this petition are as under:-

¶11

2.The petitioner was stated that he was appointed
as a ‘Peon’ in respondent No.5 and 6 School in 1992.
However the members of the Managing Committee were
harassing the employees of the school. In 1999 the
Secretary of the society called the staff members to his
residence and informed them that the society has received
salary grants but when they would get salary they would
pay part of such amount to him. The petitioner gave
certain cheques duly signed to the Secretary. The
Secretary continued his illegal demands. On the other
hand the petitioner started getting salary but he was
forced to give part of his salary to the Secretary. The
petitioner got fadeup and stopped paying any amount to

¶12

the Secretary. Due to petitioner’s refusal to give
illegal bribe to the Secretary, he was prevented from
coming to school and working as a ‘Peon’. The Petitioner
thus practically lost his job and he made several
representations to several authorities but all in-vain.

¶13

3.In 2003 the petitioner filed a writ petition in
this Court with the above grievances. This Court directed
the Collector and Superintendent of Police, Parbhani,
etc. to make an enquiry into the complaints of the
petitioner and his colleagues who were staff members of
the school.

¶14

4.On 6th October, 2004 the Collector submitted a
report. In this report as far as the petitioner is
concerned the Collector mentioned that the employer
purposely prevented the petitioner from coming to work
and the Education Department, Zilla Parishad would do
needful to help the petitioner. Despite this report and
assurance of help nothing was done. The petitioner was
not allowed to go back to his work and therefore on 17th
March, 2005 this petition was filed for following
reliefs.

¶15

“(A)To direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 4
to forwith take over the Management of the
National Orthopaedically Handicapped school at

¶16

Parbhani run by respondent Nos. 5 & 6 and
appoint an administrator, by issuing a writ of
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction.

¶17

(B)To direct the respondents to forthwith
pay salary of the petitioner as payable to the
post of Peon for the period from August, 1992
till the date of joining the post by the
petitioner, after deducting the salary actually
received by the petitioner with interest at the
rate of 12% per annum from due date(s) till
realization.”

¶18

5.After filing of this petition the petitioner
even secured ad-interim order by which the school
Management was directed to allow the petitioner to join
duty. However this order was withdrawn by speaking order
dated 18th January, 2006. This Court at interim stage
perused affidavit-in-reply filed on record by the
respondents and came to a conclusion that the disputed
questions of fact were raised in this petition.
Fortunately, the Court did not say at that time that the
petition was not maintainable. The questions that arises
in this petition are as under.

¶19

i) Whether the Court should direct taking over
Management of the school run by respondent Nos.5 & 6 and
to appoint an Administrator.

¶20

ii) Whether the respondents should be directed to
pay salary to the petitioner payable from August, 1992.

¶21

Having regard to facts and the reply filed on record
in respect of the first question:-

¶22

Perused affidavit in reply and found that the
authorities did take action against respondent Nos. 5 & 6
and recognition of the school was withdrawn for a period
between 2000-2001. But thereafter recognition was again
given to the school. The respondents apparently did not
find any mis-management in the school. We also found that
the petitioner has grievance against Management and such
grievance should be taken to appropriate authority
instead of getting recognition of the school canceled and
getting an appointment of Administrator etc. These
remedies would not make much difference to the
petitioner’s case. Therefore we are not inclined to grant
him prayer clause-(A) of this petition.

¶23

6.Question No.2:- The petitioner’s
entitlement to salary is apparently a question of fact.

¶24

We are, therefore, not inclined to go into such question.
From narration of the fact, it appears to us that the
petitioner lost his job and he ought to have approached
appropriate Forum challenging his removal from service.
Instead of that he could have been mis-directed to come
to this Court. This petition cannot succeed. The petition
stands dismissed.

¶25

6.In view of disposal of the writ petition, civil
application No.14298/2013 does not survive and stands
disposed of.

¶26

VishalK/wp2774.05

Abdul Jahir Abdul Hamid v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Jahir Abdul Hamid v. the State of Mah and Ors.

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

Mohd.Abdul Majed Mohd. Abdul Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Abdul Majed Mohd.Abdul Rasheed Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Conossa Convent School Society Dhule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Vidya Bhaskar Patil Vs the State of Mah. and Ors.

Dattaprasad Dwarkadas Zanwar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Maroti Chandoji Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra and Others