Petitioner challenged the School Tribunal order denying back wages in a termination appeal. Court dismissed the challenge as unjustifiable after eight years and noted the lower court did not err.
Petition dismissed with no orders as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:BHC-NAG:14236
1 wp 2701.24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.2701/2024 Laxmikant V Headmaster, Prabhudayal Saluja Prathamik Vidyalaya, Sahapur and others
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate for petitioner. Ms. Yoshita V. Paliwal, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 3. Mr. R.S. Khobragade, Advocate for respondent no.2. Mrs. R.B. Dhore, Advocate for respondent no.4.
CORAM : N.R. Borkar, J. DATE : 12-12-2024.
This petition takes exception to the order dated 20-03-2017 passed by the learned School Tribunal, Nagpur in Appeal STN No.69/2011.
ii. The petitioner was working as a Assistant Teacher with the respondent no.1 School. He had filed appeal against the order of termination dated 16/08/2024.
iii. By the order impugned, the learned School Tribunal has allowed the appeal. The operative part of the order passed by
the learned School Tribunal reads thus "-
2 wp 2701.24.odt
iv. The challenge in this petition to the order of the School Tribunal is to the extent of denial of back wages.
v. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
vi. The very same order of the School Tribunal was challenged by the Respondent No. 3 herein before this Court in W.P. No. 2646/2017. This Court by order dated 17-10-2019 while declining to interfere in the order passed by the learned School Tribunal has observed as under :-
"9. While directing reinstatement of the first respondent the relief of back-wages has been denied. That direction has not been challenged by the first respondent. In that view of the matter, it is found that the learned Presiding Officer has after considering the entire material on record rightly allowed the appeal filed under Section 9 of the said Act. The impugned judgment does not call for any interference in writ
3 wp 2701.24.odt
jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs."
vii. The order passed by this Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by respondent no.3 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 7/7/2023 in petition for special leave to Appeal No. 29667/2019 has declined to interfere with the order passed by this Court.
viii. Perusal of the order passed by this Court dated 17/10/2019 would show that, one of the considerations for not interfering with the order of the School Tribunal was denial of back wages. In that view of the matter, it would not be justifiable to entertain the present petition that too after eight years of the
passing of the order by the School Tribunal.
ix. The petition is dismissed.
( N.R. Borkar, J. )
Deshmukh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the School Tribunal's denial of back wages to a reinstated teacher.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Laxmikant V
Headmaster, Prabhudayal Saluja Prathamik Vidyalaya, Sahapur
N.R. Borkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
