Dismissed¶13

Nivrutti Wamanrao Sarnaik v. Zilla Parishad Akola Thr. Its Chief Executive Officer Akola and Others

Bombay HC6 Oct 2025SA/224/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Nivrutti Wamanrao Sarnaik v. Zilla Parishad, Akola — Second Appeal No. 224 of 2025, Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench (Rohit W. Joshi, J.), decided 06/10/2025. Keywords: Section 100 CPC; second appeal; substantial question of law; concurrent findings of fact; Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) pay scale; teacher, private aided school; Zilla Parishad; suit for damages and interest for delay in pay scale benefit; pension interest; Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982; re-appreciation of evidence barred in second appeal.

What did the court decide?

No relief on the claim for damages; liberty reserved to the appellant to apply for interest on delayed payment of pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, such application to be decided on its own merits. ¶13

Nivrutti Wamanrao Sarnaik Vs Zilla Parishad Akola Thr. Its Chief Executive Officer Akola and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether any substantial question of law arises under Section 100 CPC so as to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below that the delay in granting the Trained Graduate Teacher Pay Scale to the appellant was attributable to the plaintiff.

¶10

Court's answer

The findings recorded by both the courts below that the delay was attributable to the plaintiff are pure findings of fact and do not warrant any interference in exercise of second appeal jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Re-appreciation of evidence to take a different view is beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC; the appellant did not show that any material piece of evidence was left out of consideration or that the findings were perverse.

¶13

Key takeaways

No substantial question of law arises for consideration; accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed.ratio¶13
Liberty is reserved to the appellant to seek interest on delayed payment of pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982; if such an application is made to the concerned authority, it shall be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the dismissal of the suit.obiter¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC — Concurrent findings of fact by the trial Court and First Appellate Court that the delay in granting Trained Graduate Teacher Pay Scale benefit to a teacher in a private aided school was attributable to the plaintiff — Appellant did not show that any material evidence was overlooked or that findings were perverse — Prayer for re-appreciation of evidence is beyond second appeal jurisdiction — No substantial question of law arises — Appeal dismissed. Liberty reserved to seek interest on delayed pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982; application, if made, to be decided on its own merits without being influenced by dismissal of the suit.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:10819

¶2

19..odt

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶5

SECOND APPEAL NO.224 OF 2025

¶6

Nivrutti Wamanrao Sarnaik .Vs. Zilla Parishad, Akola through its CEO, Akola and others

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶8

Mr. O.Y. Kashid, Advocate for appellant.

¶9

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 06/10/2025

¶10

The present second appeal arising out of concurrent decrees passed by the learned Courts dismissing the suit for recovery of damages and interest on account of the alleged delay in granting benefit of the Trained Graduate Teacher Pay Scale to the appellant, who is working as a teacher on private aided school. The learned trial Court has recorded the findings that the delay was attributable to the plaintiff based on the evidence on record. The learned First Appellate Court has confirmed this findings. The findings recorded by both the learned Courts are pure findings of facts. Such findings of fact do not warrant any interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶11

The learned Advocate for the appellant has not pointed out that any material piece of evidence is not taken into consideration or that the findings are perverse in any

¶12

2 19..odt

¶13

manner. The learned advocate urges this Court to take a different view of the matter on reappreciation of evidence which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court while exercising appeal under Section 100 CPC. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, second appeal is dismissed .

¶14

As regards the delay in payment of pension, it will be open for the appellant to seek interest on the same in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. If such application is made to the concerned authority, the same will be decided on its own merits, without being influenced by dismissal of the suit.

¶15

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)

¶16

C.L. Dhakate

Nivrutti Wamanrao Sarnaik v. Zilla Parishad Akola Thr. Its Chief Executive Officer Akola and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nivrutti Wamanrao Sarnaik v. Zilla Parishad Akola Thr. Its Chief Executive Officer Akola and Others

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

Manish S/O Keshavrao Deshmukh Vs the Sub - Divisional Officer, Karanja, Washim and Another

Raju @ Rajesh S/O Haribhau Bhoyar Vs Smt. Shantabai W/O Sakharamji Pradhan and Others

Droupadabai Wd/O Ramsingh Dabre and Others Vs Santosh S/O Ruprao Rongare and Another

Sanjay S/O. Jagannath Gulhane Vs Sachin S/O. Vasantrao Gadhiwar and Another

Shantabai Wd/O Namdeo Hatwar and Others vs Jairam S/O Maruti Patle and Others

Chandrakant S/O Vitthalsa Mamarde vs Additional Commissioner, Amravati, Division Amravati and Others