Quashed

Shashikala Pitambar Firke v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC11 Sept 2018WP/8659/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the State's grant of service approval starting from 2009, ignoring a School Tribunal order reinstating the petitioner in 1999. This Court quashed the approval and directed the Education Officer to consider the proposal in tune with the Tribunal's judgment regarding continuous service from 1991.

What did the court decide?

Rejected the impugned order of approval and directed the Education Officer to decide the renewal proposal within four months in tune with the School Tribunal judgment.

Shashikala Pitambar Firke Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

wp8659.16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 8659 OF 2016

¶5

SHASHIKALA PITAMBAR FIRKE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

Mr.B.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.V.S.Badakh, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr.H.P.Kshirsagar, Advocate for respondent No.3
Mr.U.R.Awate, Advocate h/f Mr.N.E.Deshmukh, Advocate for
respondent No.4

¶7

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :11.09.2018

¶8

P.C. :-

¶9

The petitioner disputes the order of approval
to the extent it is granted from 12.02.2009. According
to the petitioner, the petitioner is initially appointed
in the year 1991 and since then he is working. In the
year 1991 was orally terminated. The petitioner filed an
appeal before School Tribunal. The School Tribunal
allowed the appeal and directed reinstatement to the
original post, by setting aside the oral termination of
the year 1999. According to the petitioner, the
petitioner is continuously in service from the year
1991. Initially the approval was granted from 12.02.2009
as an untrained teacher. Subsequently, that has been
corrected as a trained teacher under order 30.12.2013.
However, the grant of approval from year 2009 is
erroneous and it should be from initial date of

¶10

( 2 )

¶11

wp8659.16

¶12

appointment.

¶13

2.We heard Mr. Awate, learned counsel for the
respondent. The learned counsel for the Education
Officer submits that considering the record and decision
of this Court the order has been passed by Education
Officer.

¶14

3.The School Tribunal in an appeal filed by the
petitioner bearing Appeal No.59 of 1999 has set aside
the original termination order and directed
reinstatement in Appeal No.59 of 1999. It has been held
that the petitioner is in service in 1991. The School
Tribunal has passed following order:

¶15

"1. Appeal is allowed.

¶16

2.The act of the respondent No.1 and 2 not
allowing the appellant to work in Rosland
Madhyamik school run by them with effect from
01/10/99 is amounts to otherwise termination of
her services which is illegal void and hence
hereby set aside.

¶17

3.Order dated 31/10/99 passed blow stay
application is hereby made absolute.

¶18

4. The resp.No.1 and 2 are directed to
reinstate the appellant on her original post of
an assistant teacher in the Rosland Madhyamik
School run by them and pay her full back wages
with benefit of continuity of services, if they
have not reinstated her or have not paid her
arrears.

¶19

5.They are directed to report the compliance
of this order within a period of 40 days from
the date of receipt of this order.

¶20

6. Parties to bear their own cost."

¶21

( 3 ) wp8659.16

¶22

4.The said order of the School Tribunal is
challenged by the institution by filing a Writ Petition
before this Court bearing Writ Petition No.6996 of 2007.
The said Writ Petition is admitted and stay is granted
only to the extent of backwages.

¶23

5.While considering proposal seeking approval to
the appointment of petitioner, the respondent authority
was bound by the order passed by the School Tribunal in
Appeal No.59 of 1999 filed by the present petitioner.
The order of the School Tribunal is judicial order and
the initial date of appointment was required to be
considered as per the judicial order passed. The order
of approval that may be granted by the Education Officer
would be subject to the decision in the Writ Petition
filed by the management against the order of the School
Tribunal. However, the Education Officer could not have
ignored the judgment of the School Tribunal and while
granting approval ought to have considered the finding
given by the School Tribunal about the continuous
officiation of the petitioner from the earlier date.

¶24

6.In the result the impugned order is quashed and
set aside. The Education Officer shall consider the
proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the
petitioner in tune with the judgment of the School
Tribunal in Appeal No.59 of 1999, dated 11.04.2007. The
said proposal shall be decided expeditiously preferably
within four months.

¶25

7.

¶26

The management shall submit the proposal in

¶27

( 4 ) wp8659.16

¶28

tune with the judgment of the School Tribunal within a
period of six weeks from today. On receipt on the said
proposal the Education Officer shall decide the same
within four months thereafter.

¶29

8.The respondent shall also consider the pay-scale
applicable to the petitioner commensurate to his
qualification and availability of post.

¶30

9.The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶31

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

¶32

ssp/Sept. 18/ wp8659.16

Shashikala Pitambar Firke v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikala Pitambar Firke v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Madhukar Dattatray Petkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vimal Sopan Mudgudkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jagdishchandra Shankarlal Sharma and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anothers

Dnyaneshwar Dattatraya Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ab Wahab Haji Abdul Reheman, Lrs Gulam Ahmad Wahab and Others Vs State of Maharashtra and Others