Dismissed

Sambhaji Rajaram Kale. v. Adarsh Vidyaarjan Mandal and Others.

Bombay HC23 Dec 2016WP/4039/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the School Tribunal's denial of back wages. The Court held that the petitioner could not claim monetary benefits for the period of belated appeal and its condonation, nor for the period following the sustaining of the Tribunal's judgment in earlier proceedings by a Division Bench. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the petitioner is deprived of monetary benefits for the period of delay and condonation.

Sambhaji Rajaram Kale. Vs Adarsh Vidyaarjan Mandal and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.4039 OF 1997

¶4

Sambhaji S/o Rajaram Kale, Age-29 years, Occu-Service, R/o Ward No.28, C/o Datta Bhojanalaya, Datta Bardi Road, At Post Tal.Hadgaon, Dist.Nanded -- PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

Adarsha Vidyarjan Mandal, Tq.Hadgaon, Dist.Nanded, Through its Secretary,

¶7

Panchasheel Vidyarjan High School, At Hadgaon, Tal.Hadgaon, Dist.Nanded,

¶8

The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded,

¶9

The State of Maharashtra, Through Government Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad -- RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr.S.V.Kshirsagar h/f Mr.A.S.Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Kendre, AGP for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶11

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶12

DATE : 23/12/2016

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

The petitioner has challenged the judgment of the School

¶15

khs/DEC.2016/4039-d

¶16

¶17

Tribunal dated 28/10/1994 by the present writ petition filed on 24/12/1996. The grievance of the petitioner is restricted to challenging the denial of back wages. It is submitted that WP No.2527/1995 filed by the respondent/Management for challenging the judgment of the School Tribunal granting reinstatement with continuity of service to the petitioner, was dismissed by order dated 10/06/1996.

¶18

Mr.Kshirsagar, learned Advocate for the petitioner has strenuously criticized the denial of back wages by the School Tribunal. He submits that the illegal act of the Management cannot be overlooked and once the termination is set aside, back wages should be granted as a natural course.

¶19

I find that the petitioner had preferred his appeal belatedly. Delay of 8 months was condoned by the Tribunal. His termination is dated 23/01/1993 and the date of the judgment of the Tribunal is 28/10/1994. Naturally, the petitioner cannot derive the benefits/ advantage of the delay period and he cannot claim monetary benefits for the same. So also, the condonation of delay application was allowed after a few months which would disentitle him from claiming wages for the said period.

¶20

khs/DEC.2016/4039-d

¶21

¶22

Considering the above and for the abovesaid period which is on account of the delay and its condonation, petitioner is rightly deprived of the monetary benefits lest it would amount to gaining advantage on account of the delay.

¶23

So also, the learned Division Bench of this Court has sustained the judgment of the Tribunal by its order dated 10/06/1996 by which the petition filed by the Management was dismissed. D espite having appeared in the matter, the petitioner did not challenge the said judgment of the Tribunal to the extent of denial of back wages and after 6 months of the order of the learned Division Bench, he has filed this petition.

¶24

Considering the peculiar facts as above, I do not find that the petitioner deserves to be granted back wages. This petition being devoid of merit, is therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged.

¶25

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶26

khs/DEC.2016/4039-d

Sambhaji Rajaram Kale. v. Adarsh Vidyaarjan Mandal and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sambhaji Rajaram Kale. v. Adarsh Vidyaarjan Mandal 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

The State of Maharashtra and Others. Vs Bharat Nawal Patil.

Ranjeet Baburao Avhad. Vs Divisional Controller,M.S.R.T.C.Dhule.

Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Mahora. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others.

Vinod Jugraj Mutha Vs Satish Babulal Khandelwal

Shirish Pandharinath Joshi and Others Vs the General Manager, Bosch Chassis System India Ltd. and Others

Shirish Pandharinath Joshi and Others Vs the General Manager, Bosch Chassis System India Ltd. and Others