Allowed

Smt. Mahejaan Ashfak Ahmed Shaikh v. the New Education Institute through Chairman and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Nov 2017WP/3465/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay directed the State to consider a management proposal for the petitioner, treating her original appointment as 8 June 1992 and ordering salary and arrears payment effective 12 January 2015.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider appointment proposal; payment of salary and arrears from 12 Jan 2015.

Smt. Mahejaan Ashfak Ahmed Shaikh Vs the New… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

YBG

¶2

938-as-wp-3465-16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3465 OF 2016

¶4

Smt. Mahejaan Ashfak Ahmed Shaikh Versus

¶5

The New Education Institute Through Chairman and Ors.

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

Mr. N.R.Bubna for petitioner

¶9

Mr. V.R.Kasle i/b. Ram & Co. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mrs. Rupali Shinde, AGP for respondent Nos. 3 and 4

¶10

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & SANDEEP K. SHNDE, JJ

¶11

DATE : 24^th November, 2017

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

It appears that the petitioner was originally appointed on

¶14

8^th June 1992. However, her services came to be terminated with effect from 30^th April 1994. The petitioner challenged her termination by filing an appeal bearing Appeal No.26 of 1992, which came to be allowed by an order dated 7^th February 1997. The same was challenged before this Court by way of Writ Petition NO.2657 of 1997. That petition was dismissed by order dated 24^th August 2007. Thereafter, the management filed SLP which was also dismissed on 26^th November 2014. Review Petition which was filed thereafter, also came to be disposed of by order dated 4^th November 2015. The petitioner thereafter was permitted to resume on 12^th January 2015.

¶15

938-as-wp-3465-16

¶16

YBG

¶17

2] It appears that the management had submitted two proposals for grant of approval to the appointment of petitioner; one with effect from 8^th June 1992 and other one from 12^th January 2015. However, after realising the mistake, the management has withdrawn the second proposal, viz., 12^th January 2015.

¶18

3] In that view of the matter, we dispose of the petition by directing respondent State to consider the proposal granted by the management treating the date of appointment of petitioner as 8^th June 1992 and take a decision thereon within four weeks from today.

¶19

4] It is made clear that the respondent Education Officer shall pay salary to the petitioner with effect from 12^th January 2015 treating the petitioners original date of appointment as 8^th June 1992. All arrears with effect from the said date shall also be paid by the Education Officer within a period of three months.

¶20

5] However, it is also made clear that as directed by the learned School Tribunal, the back wages from the date of termination till her reinstatement i.e. 12^th January 2015 shall be paid by the Management as directed by the learned School Tribunal. We are inclined to pass this order specifically taking into consideration the

¶21

YBG

¶22

938-as-wp-3465-16

¶23

fact that though the appeal of the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 7^th February 1997, it is on account of the various litigation which was taken out by the management, the order of school tribunal could be implemented after a period of 18 long years.

¶24

Petition is disposed of.

¶25

(SANDEEP SHINDE, J)

¶26

(B.R.GAVAI, J.)

Smt. Mahejaan Ashfak Ahmed Shaikh v. the New Education Institute through Chairman and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mahejaan Ashfak Ahmed Shaikh v. the New Education Institute through Chairman and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijaya Arun Dinde Vs the Principal Ramdevi Sobhraj Bajaj Arya Vidya Mandir and 3 Ors.

Vinay Kumar D. Singh Vs State of Maharashtra through Ministry of Law and Judiciary and Ors.

The Secretary, Maharashtra State School Employees Union Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Eastern English Academy R.F. Dholgarwadi Vs Sharda Shiksan Prasarak Mandal and Ors.

Dr. Shailesh Shivdas Bhaisare Vs Savitribai Phule Sikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors.

Miss Pradnya Bhagwan Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary and Ors.