Dismissed

Maharashi Vithal Ramaji Shinde Shikshan Sanstha v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Feb 2018WP/455/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the court addressed a claim for salary payment based on a prior School Tribunal order quashing termination. The court, with one petitioner absent, held that the Tribunal's judgment, confirmed by the High Court, obliges the petitioners to reinstate the employee and pay back wages, thereby preventing any salary liability on the State. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; the petitioners are obliged to reinstate the respondent and pay back wages as per the earlier School Tribunal and High Court judgments.

Maharashi Vithal Ramaji Shinde Shikshan… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

455.02WP

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.455 OF 2002

¶5

1] Maharshi Vithal Ramaji Shinde Shikshan Sanstha, Latur Through it’s Secretary Shri. Pandurang Gundiba Bhise, Age 57 years, Occu: Secretary, R/o. Singal Camp, Latur.

¶6

2] The Head Master, Jadhav Vidyalaya, Ankoli, Post Sawargaon, Tq.Latur PETITIONERS

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1] The State of Maharashtra

¶9

2] The E.O. [Secondary], Z.P. Latur.

¶10

3] Vijaykumar s/o. Sadhu Shnedge Age 31 years, Occu: Service, R/o. Murud Akola, Tq. &

¶11

Dist. Latur.

¶12

RESPONDENTS

¶13

...

¶14

Mr.S.M.Ganachari, AGP for the respondent/State

¶15

...

¶16

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND

¶17

 S.M.GAVHANE, JJ.
 DATE : 24.02.2018

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT: [Per : S.S.Shinde, J.]

¶19

1]When the matter is called out for

¶20

hearing, none appears for the petitioners.

¶21

2]Learned AGP appearing for the respondent-

¶22

455.02WP

¶23

¶24

State is not in a position to assist this Court
since the papers / brief is not available with
him.

¶25

3]Be that as it may, it appears that this
Petition is pending since the Year 2002, and
therefore, we are not inclined to defer the
hearing of this Petition any further.

¶26

4]This Petition is filed praying therein to
direct respondent no.2 to pay the salary of
respondent no.3 since the date of reinstatement
i.e. 17.03.2000 onwards.

¶27

5]Pursuant to the notices issued to the
respondents, respondent nos.1 and 2 have filed
affidavit in reply. It is stated in the said
affidavit in reply that the appointment of
respondent no.3 by the petitioners was in excess
of the sanctioned posts, and therefore, individual
approval to his appointment has not been given by

¶28

respondent no.2. It appears that the services of

¶29

respondent no.3 were terminated by the

¶30

455.02WP

¶31

¶32

petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said
termination, respondent no.3 filed Appeal
No.59/1999 [Vijaykumar s/o. Sadhu Shendge Vs.
Maharshi Vithal Ramji Shinde Shikshan Sanstaha,
Latur & others] before the Presiding Officer,

¶33

School Tribunal, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
By the judgment and order dated 1st April, 2000,
the said Appeal came to be allowed and the
impugned order of termination dated 10th March,
1999, terminating the services of respondent no.3

¶34

since June, 1998 by the petitioner - management
was quashed and set aside. Respondent nos.1 and 2

¶35

i.e. the present petitioners, were directed to
reinstate the appellant i.e. respondent no.3
herein within 30 days with full back wages and
further to give him the consequential benefits. It
was further made clear in the operative part that

¶36

in failure to reinstate respondent no.3 by the
petitioners or inaction in making the payment, the
State Government to deduct equal fund to the
salary to the appellant i.e. respondent no.3 from
the grant in aid of the respondent society and to

¶37

455.02WP

¶38

¶39

pay him monthly. The said judgment and order was
assailed by the petitioners before the High Court
by way of filing Writ Petition No.3941 of 2000
[Maharshi Vithal Ramji Shinde Shikshan Sanstha,
Latur Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others].
However, the said Writ Petition was dismissed by
the High Court.

¶40

6]In that view of the matter, the judgment
and order passed by the School Tribunal attained
finality. In view of the judgment and order of the
School Tribunal, the petitioners are obliged to
implement the directions issued by the School
Tribunal, which are confirmed by the High Court.
Therefore, the question of paying salary by
respondent no.2 to respondent no.3 would not
arise. In that view of the matter, no relief can
be granted to the petitioners, hence the Petition
stands rejected. Rule stands discharged.

¶41

DDC

Maharashi Vithal Ramaji Shinde Shikshan Sanstha v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashi Vithal Ramaji Shinde Shikshan Sanstha v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Nature Lovers Club Ahmednagar through Its Secretary Nitin Madhavrao Thorat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shashikant Gulchand Londhe and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Walmiki Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its Secretary and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gajanan Nilkanthrao Bande Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Datta Chhaganrao Shingare Vs Union of India and Ors.

Anil Chandu Jadhav Vs the State Ofmah. and Ors.