Allowed

Usman Nizamoddin Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC13 Dec 2016WP/2356/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order regarding the absorption of a surplus peon from a derecognized school. The Court directed the respondent authority to list the petitioner as a surplus employee for future absorption in aided institutions while denying salary claims during termination and deferring service continuity benefits.

What did the court decide?

Respondent to place petitioner in list of surplus employees for absorption; salary during termination denied; service considered for continuity.

Usman Nizamoddin Shaikh Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 wp 2356.15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2356 OF 2015

¶4

Usman S/o Nizamoddin Shaikh, Age : 46 Years, Occu. : Nil, R/o Indira Nagar, A-P Kalamb, Tq. Kalamb, Dist – Osmanabad. .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Maharashtra, School Education and Sports Department Mantralay Vistar Bhavan, Mumbai 32. (Through its Principal Secretary)

¶7

Deputy Director of Education Latur.

¶8

The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. .. Respondents

¶9

Shri Prashant Nagargoje, Advocate h/f Shri R. J. Godbole, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, Addl.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶10

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND

¶11

K. L. WADANE, JJ. DATE : 13TH DECEMBER, 2016.

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-

¶13

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with consent of parties.

¶14

2 wp 2356.15

¶15

Mr. Nagargoje, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner at the relevant time was working as a peon with Shri Shivaji Vidyalaya Karanjkalla, Tq. Kallamb, Dist. Osmanabad. The said school was derecognized. The petitioner is not absorbed. The petitioner being a member of non teaching staff, is nowhere concerned with imparting education. According to the learned counsel, some of the members of the teaching staff had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 340 of 2015 and Writ Petition No. 348 of 2015. This Court had directed those teachers shall be placed in the list of surplus candidates and that they are not responsible for the closer of the school. The said order was passed on 14^th September 2016. The petitioner was also permanent employee of the said school having rendered service for 23 years.

¶16

Mrs. Gondhalekar, the learned Additional Government Pleader submits that, the school was derecognized. For last three years the result of 10^th standard was 00%. Various deficiencies were noted. Considering the same and the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009, the action was rightly taken. The petitioner is not required to be absorbed.

¶17

We have considered the submissions canvassed by the

¶18

3 wp 2356.15

¶19

learned counsel for respective parties. This Court under order dated 14^th September, 2016 in Writ Petition No. 340 of 2015 and Writ Petition No. 348 of 2015 had allowed the petitions filed by the teachers and had held that the teachers cannot be said to be solely responsible for the closer of the school and were directed to be absorbed. The petitioner it appears that, is a member of non teaching staff, was working as a peon. The name of the petitioner also appears in the list.

¶20

For the reasons recorded in the order dated 14^th September, 2016 in Writ Petition No. 340 of 2015 and Writ Petition NO. 348 of 2015, we pass following order.

¶21

: O R D E R :

¶22

a) The impugned order is set aside.

¶23

b) The respondent authority shall place the petitioners in the list of surplus employees and as per its turn, accommodate the petitioner in aided institution.

¶24

c) It is made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled for salary during the period he stood terminated and till the time he is absorbed.

¶25

4 wp 2356.15

¶26

However, his services may be considered as per law for the purpose of continuity.

¶27

d) Rule accordingly is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

¶28

Sd/Sd/[ K. L. WADANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶29

bsb/Dec. 16

Usman Nizamoddin Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usman Nizamoddin Shaikh v. 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasant Ramchandra Puranik Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanjay Sahebrao Patil Vs Kisan Vidya Prasarak Sanstha Shirpur through President v T Randhir and Ors.

Vithal Uttam Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sushilabai Sopan Rathod Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Jawaharlal Nehru Engineering College, Aurangabad Vs All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi and Others

Sandip Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Nashik Vs All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi and Another