Disposed

Raigad Zilla Madhyamik and Uchha Madhyamik Shal Shikshaketar Karmachari Sangha v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Feb 2024WP/8007/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP Nos. 5058 and 8007 of 2021, associations challenged a Government Resolution altering staffing patterns. The Court held that interpreted correctly, the Resolution did not mandate termination of approved employees. Considering the protection under specific service Rules, the Court disposed of the petitions and interim applications without deciding larger issues.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions and all interim applications were disposed of. Larger questions were left open.

Raigad Zilla Madhyamik and Uchha Madhyamik… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 75 WP 5058-21 & 8007-21.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5058 OF 2021

¶4

Maharashtra Rajya Shaikshanik Prayogshala Karmachari Mahasangh And Anr

¶5

...Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Maharashtra And Ors . ...Respondents

¶8

WITH

¶9

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1213 OF 2024

¶10

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO. 5058 OF 2021

¶12

SNEHA NITIN

¶13

CHAVAN

¶14

Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2024.02.12 19:37:45 +0530

¶15

State of Maharashtra thru. Deputy Director ...Applicant of Education Mumbai

¶16

In the matter between:

¶17

Maharashtra Rajya Shaikshanik Prayogshala Karmachari Mahasangh And Anr ...Petitioners

¶18

Versus State Of Maharashtra And Ors . ...Respondents

¶19

WITH

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO. 8007 OF 2021

¶21

Raigad Zilla Madhyamik And Uchha Madhyamik Shala Shikshaketar Karmachari Sangha thru. Its Secretary ...Petitioner Versus

¶22

State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Respondents

¶23

¶24

Mr. Meelan Topkar for the Petitioner in WP/5058/2021. Mr. Avinash Fatangare for the Petitioner in WP/8007/2023.

¶25

Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General a/w Mr. P.P. Kakade, AGP with Mr. K.S. Thorat, AGP with Ms. N.M. Mehra, AGP for for the Respondent/State in both petition and for Applicant in IA/1213/2024.

¶26

Sneha Chavan

¶27

2 75 WP 5058-21 & 8007-21.doc

¶28

Mr. Govind Tongar, Legal Advisor, Education Department present. Mr. Siddheshwar Sapkar, Dest Officer present. Mr. Shantaram Londbe, Law Officer, Deputy Director, Mumbai present.

¶29

¶30

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND M.M.SATHAYE, JJ.

¶31

DATE : 6 FEBRUARY 2024

¶32

P.C. :

¶33

. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶34

Both these petitions are filed by Associations. In Writ Petition No. 5058 of 2021, the Petitioner/Association espouses the cause of the Laboratory Assistants in various private schools in the State of Maharashtra. In Writ Petition No. 8007 of 2021 the Petitioner/ Association espouses the cause of non teaching staff.

¶35

In both these petitions challenge is to the Government Resolution dated 28 January 2019 and subsequent follow up Resolution dated 7 March 2019 which has changed the staffing pattern in the aided secondary and higher secondary schools.

¶36

The challenge is raised by the Association on various grounds such as the change in staffing pattern entailing reduction of the posts, which will result in the termination of the members of the Association and how the change in staffing pattern will affect the

¶37

Sneha Chavan

¶38

3 75 WP 5058-21 & 8007-21.doc

¶39

education as imparted in these schools.

¶40

The learned Advocate General states that these petitions are filed by the Associations espousing the cause of their members which can be related to their services and larger issues raised in these petitions need not be considered at the behest of the Petitioners. The learned Advocate General points out that the ad-interim order which is operating in the petitions is affecting the functioning of the educational department of the State.

¶41

What we have before us are not public interest litigations. In both petitions, the Petitioners/Associations have made it clear though they have not even detailed their membership, that they seek to espouse the cause of their members who are working as Laboratory Assistants and on various non teaching posts. The apprehension of the Petitioners, by interpreting the impugned Government Resolution, is that by deduction/change in staffing pattern, the services of their members would be terminated.

¶42

The learned Advocate General points out that this interpretation is not correct as the reading of the Government Resolution would show that the members of the Petitioner Associations, for that matter other similarly situated employees, would not be terminated from the services pursuant to the impugned Government Resolution. The learned Advocate General points out that even if the posts are declared surplus, since the Maharashtra

¶43

Sneha Chavan

¶44

4 75 WP 5058-21 & 8007-21.doc

¶45

Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act and Rules thereunder are applicable, being approved on the posts, absorption will have to be done as per the governing Rules 26 and 27 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981and till that time such employees are absorbed, their salary will be borne as per the Rules.

¶46

Since, the Government Resolution is interpreted as such by the learned Advocate General, whose interpretation we accept, the apprehension of the members of Petitioners/Associations regarding termination from services and being rendered jobless no longer survives. The members of the Petitioners/Associations, approved employees would have the protection of Rules 26 and 27 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. The learned Advocate General states that in light of what is observed above, necessary instructions would be issued by the State Government.

¶47

That being the position, it is not necessary for us to continue to entertain the challenge at the behest of these petitioners. Leaving the larger question open, if and when it is brought before the Court by the affected parties, we dispose of the Writ Petitions. All interim applications are also disposed of.

¶48

(M.M.SATHAYE, J.)

¶49

(NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

¶50

Sneha Chavan

Raigad Zilla Madhyamik and Uchha Madhyamik Shal Shikshaketar Karmachari Sangha v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raigad Zilla Madhyamik and Uchha Madhyamik Shal Shikshaketar Karmachari Sangha 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalyan Gopal Ghoderao and Ors. Vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation

Vinod Prabhudayal Agrawal and Ors. Vs the District Collector and Ors.

Vijay S/O Mukund Kulkarni, Assistant Teacher, Vidyamandir High Schoo and Jr. College Vs Smt. Abha Shukla, Principal Secretary Finance Department State of Mah. and Ors.

Rajashri Shahu Chatrapati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Shirgaon Thr Its Joint Secretary and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary School Education and Sports Department and Ors.

Maharashtra Rajya Shaikshanik Prayogshala Karmachari Mahasangh and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Usha Namdeo More Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary and Ors.