Solapur Zilla Madhyamik, Uchha Madhyamik Va Adhyapak Vidyalaya Shikshetar Sevak Sangh and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

“(b) The Hon'ble court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 not to credit monthly salary grants payable to the employees serving in private aided schools within the district of Solapur to the respondent No. 2 bank;

¶20

(c) The Hon'ble court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, direction or order directing the

¶21

1 of 4

¶22

Shubham Talle

¶23

6-PIL-104-2014.doc

¶24

respondent government to release salary grant in respect of the employees serving in aided schools in the district of Solapur through any nationalized bank.”

¶25

3. On 1^st October 2014 this Court had passed the following order.

¶26

“1. Heard. The Petitioners' grievance is that amount towards payment of their salary and non-salary grants are deposited in Solapur District Co-operative Bank. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that considering the peculiar inancial condition of the Respondent No.2Bank, the Petitioners are apprehensive whether the amounts which the State Government deposits with the Respondent No.2 - Bank would be safe. The learned counsel submits that it would be in the larger interest of the teaching and non-teaching staf of the schools, if the State deposits the amount in any nationalised Bank. The Petitioners are at liberty to submit a comprehensive representation addressed to the State Authority. The learned counsel seeks suicient time to adopt such a method. The learned counsel seeks adjournment. Stand over to 12^th November 2014.”

¶27

4. On 22^nd December 2016 the following order came to be passed.

¶28

“1. It is recorded in our order dated 1 October 2014, that the petitioner no.1, which espouses the cause of employees in State Aided Schools questions the practice of the State Government in depositing the amounts towards the salaries of employees in Solapur District Co- operative Bank, instead of any nationalized bank.

¶29

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners have invited our attention to the report of the auditor of the bank which indicates that by the year 2010, there were disbursement of loans to the extent of almost Rs.2,200 crores and if the same is continued there is likelihood of liquidity crisis. The apprehension expressed by the petitioners cannot be said to be unjustiied. Besides, the petitioners have also placed on record instances where co-operative banks have gone into liquidation and the employees whose salaries were credited therein, were made to sufer. Ultimately, we note that the

¶30

2 of 4

¶31

Shubham Talle

¶32

6-PIL-104-2014.doc

¶33

salaries are earned by the employees and there is no point in making them feel insecure for reasons over which they have no control. There is on record G.R. dated 20 February 1973 which speaks about the scheme for payment of salaries and allowances to the teaching and non-teaching staf of aided Non-Government secondary schools through Co-operative Banks. The scheme, relates to the year 1973, possibly in order to encourage the functioning of the cooperative banks.

¶34

3. In the light of the material placed on record as also the experience of happenings in various other banks in the cooperative sector, we are of the opinion that the State must consider whether there is necessity to revisit such scheme, before, we proceed to examine this matter further. Accordingly, we grant six weeks time to the State Authorities to take a decision in the matter, in the light of our aforesaid observations. Further, we also direct the State Authorities to place on record their aidavit in reply by responding to the various averments in the petition and in the context of the issue raised in the petition. Such aidavit may be iled within a period of eight weeks from today, indicating therein the decision, if any, which the State Government may have arrived at in the meanwhile.”

¶35

5. Counsel for Respondent No. 2-District Central Co-operative Bank opposed the PIL, contending that many teachers have taken loans from the Bank. If their salaries are redirected to nationalized banks, as sought by the petitioners, the DCC Bank would face diiculty in recovering loan installments.

¶36

6. We are informed that the government scheme has since been revised and the scheme now permits salaries to be deposited in nationalized banks as well. In this view of the matter, the petitioners may submit a comprehensive representation to the Respondent No. 4-

¶37

3 of 4

¶38

Shubham Talle

¶39

6-PIL-104-2014.doc

¶40

Education Oicer (Secondary) or the Respondent No. 3-Deputy Director of Education if their members wish to have their salaries deposited in a nationalized bank. The competent authorities may then take a decision in accordance with the current scheme.

¶41

7. Further it is also open for the teachers to approach the Education Oicer (Secondary) or Deputy Director of Education bringing to their notice the hardship or insecurity faced by them as a result of such deposit with the Respondent No. 2.

¶42

8. So far as the loan recovery is concerned, it is always open for the Petitioners to take appropriate steps for recovery in accordance with law.

¶43

9. Public Interest Litigation is disposed of.

¶44

[ Ajit B. Kadethankar, J. ]

¶45

[ M. S. Karnik, J. ]

¶46

4 of 4

¶47

Shubham Talle

Solapur Zilla Madhyamik, Uchha Madhyamik Va Adhyapak Vidyalaya Shikshetar Sevak Sangh and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Solapur Zilla Madhyamik, Uchha Madhyamik Va Adhyapak Vidyalaya Shikshetar Sevak Sangh and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Maruti Karemore Vs Additional Chief Secretary, Public Works Department

Vishwesh Atchuta Kamat and Anr. vs the High Court of Judicature of Bombay and Others

Sapan Sushilkumar Jhunjhunwala Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Husen Shaikh Burhan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Santosh Trymbak Murkute Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashfaq Khan Hameed Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajendranath Parasnath Pandey and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Dinesh S/O. Sheshrao Thakre and Another vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi and Ors.

Amir @ a. Hamid Nazir Mulla Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shree Warna Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Prashant Pradip Sonawane and Ors. Vs the Deputy Director Sangli and Ors.

Rohit Sidram Khatal and Ors. vs Ranjit Singh Deol IAS the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashok Gangaram Kajrolkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Ramesh Jijaba Shinde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Nagar Vikas Vibhag, State of Maharashtra and Ors.