Disposed

Sant Dnyaneshwar Bahu-Uddeshiya Shikshan Mandal, Dhaba Thr. Its President and Another v. Wasudeo Shrikrushna Kadu and Another

Bombay HC5 Sept 2024WP/1253/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenge a School Tribunal order directing reinstatement of an employee with fifty per cent back wages from the date of the appeal, holding the enquiry vitiated and ordering a fresh enquiry. The court directed the petitioners to conduct a fresh enquiry within 120 days under the MEPS Rules, deposit fifty per cent back wages within eight weeks, and report the enquiry decision for furthe

What did the court decide?

Interim directions: fresh enquiry within 120 days under MEPS Rules; deposit of fifty per cent back wages within eight weeks; enquiry decision to be reported to the Court before further listing.

Sant Dnyaneshwar Bahu-Uddeshiya Shikshan Mandal… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

4-wp1253.24.odt

¶2

1/2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1253 OF 2024

¶5

Sant Dnyaneshwar Bahu-uddeshiya Shikshan Mandal Dhaba and anr.

¶6

-Vs.-

¶7

Wasudeo Shrikrushna Kadu and another

¶8

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶9

Mr.P.S.Patil, counsel for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr.V.A.Kothale, counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶11

CORAM : B. P. DESHPANDE, J.

¶12

DATE : 4^TH MARCH, 2024

¶13

Heard Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Kothale, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶14

The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the School Tribunal with certain conditions. First of all, the Tribunal has directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent No.1 within a period of forty days and to pay him fifty per cent back wages from the date of institution of appeal, i.e. 04/01/2022 till reinstatement within a period of two months. The Tribunal also found that the enquiry was vitiated and therefore, the petitioners have been directed to conduct a fresh enquiry.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Acts and Rules are not applicable to

KHUNTE

4-wp1253.24.odt

2/2

the petitioner-School and therefore, the respondent No.1 is not entitled to file appeal before the School Tribunal under the said Act.

¶20

The grounds raised in the present petition requires consideration.

¶21

The petitioners are directed to conduct a fresh enquiry within a period of 120 days as provided under the MEPS Rules.

¶22

The petitioners are directed to deposit fifty per cent back wages in this Court within a period of eight weeks.

¶23

Once the enquiry is completed, the petitioners shall intimate the decision to the respondent No.1. Such decision shall be placed before this Court in the present petition. Only thereafter, the petition shall be listed for further consideration.

¶24

The parties shall act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Signed by: Mr. G.S. Khunte Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 04/03/2024 18:06:29 KHUNTE

Sant Dnyaneshwar Bahu-Uddeshiya Shikshan Mandal, Dhaba Thr. Its President and Another v. Wasudeo Shrikrushna Kadu and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sant Dnyaneshwar Bahu-Uddeshiya Shikshan Mandal, Dhaba Thr. Its President and Another v. Wasudeo Shrikrushna Kadu and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Praful S/O Haridas Bade vs the M.S.R.T. Corporation, Thr. Divisional Controller, S.T. Divisional Office, Wardha and Another

Sakharam Narayan Pawane vs the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati and Others

Bhavesh S/O Govindrao Katekhaye vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and Others

Aditya Tejrao Gawai and Others vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Co. Operation, Marketing and Clotting, Mumbai and Others

Sitaram S/O Jagannath Lanjewar vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Deptt. of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and Others

Shaikh Zaheer Ahmed S/O Shaikh Maula vs the State of Maha. Thr. Principal Sec. Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Others