Disposed

Sunita Baban Solse v. the State of Maharshtra and Others

Bombay HC28 Aug 2018WP/11854/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petition for regularisation due to lack of sanctioned post but directed the Education Officer to determine and decide within three months the pay scale applicable for the petitioner's work from 2012.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to approach the Education Officer for pay scale determination for the year 2012 to 2015.

Sunita Baban Solse Vs the State of Maharshtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wp11854.15

¶2

( 1 )

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO. 11854 OF 2015

¶5

SUNITA BABAN SOLSE

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

Mr.Ramesh I. Wakade, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.N.T.Bhagat, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr.Pandurang M. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent
Nos. 4 and 5

¶9

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & S.M.GAVHANE,JJ. DATED : 28.08.2018

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

.The petitioner under present writ petition
seeks multifarious reliefs such as direction against
the respondent-institution to pay arrears of salary
and other allowances since December, 2014. So also,
all the arrears of salary and allowances and to pay
difference amount to the petitioner from the date of
appointment till the month of November, 2014. The
petitioner also seeks directions against the
institution to forward the proposal of the
petitioner for approval.

¶12

2.Mr. Wakade, learned counsel submits that
the petitioner was appointed on 18.07.2006 as a

¶13

Shikshan Sevak. On 30.04.2008 the petitioner was
terminated. The petitioner had filed an appeal
before the School Tribunal. On 11.07.2011 the matter
was compromised by the petitioner with the
Management and the petitioner was reinstated. The
Management passed the Resolution on 23.09.2010. The
petitioner is also issued with an experience
certificate by the Headmistress on 25.07.2015.
Learned counsel submits that since the date of
appointment the petitioner is paid honorarium of
Rs.1000/- to 1500/- per month. Learned counsel
submits that the petitioner is entitled for the
salary as per Schedule “C” of the MEPS Act.
According to the learned counsel after November,
2015 the petitioner is not allowed to perform the
duties. The respondent assured the petitioner that
as and when the vacancy arises, the petitioner would
be accommodated in the vacancy.

¶14

3.Mr. Gaikwad, learned counsel appearing for
the Management submits that the petitioner was not
issued with any appointment order nor the petitioner
was appointed after following selection process. The
petitioner wanted experience and at the request of
the petitioner, the respondent Management allowed

¶15

the petitioner to teach on honorarium of Rs.1000/-
per months. Subsequently, the petitioner was also
paid Rs.1500/- per month. It is only at the request
of the petitioner for getting the experience, the
institution appointed the petitioner. The petitioner
is not in service of the respondent from 19.11.2015.
The petitioner had earlier not made any grievance.
The petitioner only gave an application in 2015 to
increase her honorarium.

¶16

4.We had directed the Deputy Director of
Education to inspect the record and submit his
report. Pursuant to our order, the Deputy Director
has verified the record and submitted his report.
The Deputy Director of Education found that the
appointment of the petitioner is not within the
sanction limit of the staffing pattern. The
signature of the petitioner does not appear in the
Musterbook. The petitioner has been paid an amount
of Rs.26,215/-.

¶17

5.The fact that the petitioner has worked
with the institution for a period as referred to
above is not disputed even by the respondent
Management. The Management contends that the

¶18

petitioner was appointed at the request of the
petitioner for getting experience and that the
appointment of the petitioner was not on sanctioned
post and that no selection process was followed.

¶19

6.In fact the Management is not supposed to
appoint such candidates. The Management is running
an Educational Institution and casually cannot allow
persons to teach the students without considering
the interest of the students. It is stated by the
Management that the selection process was never
followed while appointing the petitioner. If that
is the case fault lies with the Management in
allowing such person to teach the students without
verifying the competency and the capability. The
students are sufferers. In an Educational
institution interest of the students is paramount.
The Educational institution cannot be allowed to
play with the career of the students in such casual
manner.

¶20

7.It is not disputed that the petitioner is
working with the respondent on honorarium of
Rs.1500/-. When the respondent institution is
extracting the work from the petitioner, the

¶21

institution is required to pay the respectable
emolument to the petitioner.

¶22

8.Schedule “C” deals with the salary to be
paid to the teacher. Schedule “C” was not amended in
the year 2015 with regard to the payscale applicable
as per 6th pay commission. Schedule “C” prescribed
the payscale as was applicable on 5th pay commission.
Be that as it may, reasonable amount was expected to
be paid by the Management when it ventures to
appoint the petitioner and allow the petitioner to
teach the students.

¶23

9.As far as claim of the petitioner that
respondent be directed to absorb the petitioner on
the vacant post is concerned, it cannot be
considered by us in the present petition. The
petitioner is discontinued from service on/after
19/20.11.2015. The petitioner may take appropriate
remedy as may be permissible in the law.

¶24

10.The petitioner may approach the Education
Officer with regard to the emoluments to be paid for
the period of three years prior to filing of the
present petition i.e. from 13.10.2012 till the date

¶25

the petitioner was discontinued from the service.
The Education Officer shall consider the payscale
that may applicable for such posts on which the
petitioner was working and shall decide the same
within a period of three months from the date the
petitioner would file the application. The same
shall be decided after hearing the petitioner and
the Management.

¶26

11.The writ petition stands disposed of. No

¶27

costs.

¶28

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.]

¶29

VishalK/ wp11854.15

Sunita Baban Solse v. the State of Maharshtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Baban Solse v. the State of Maharshtra 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

Sangita Ramesh Koli @ Sangita Hemendra Sapkale Vs Education Officer (Sec), Zp Jalgaon and Anr.

Shaikh Hameed Shaikh Hyder and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

The Commissioner of Income TAX-1, Nashik Vs Ramrao Sitaram Patil (Huf) and (Individual)

Hanuman Savalhari Sarode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prashant Dagdu Warkari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Madhukar Daulatrao Wavale Vs the State of Mah and Ors.