M Michael Raj vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

M Michael Raj vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with directions: Respondent No. 2 (Deputy Direction of Education, Mumbai Region) to issue notice to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (the institution) and the Petitioner, hear all stakeholders, verify records and pass a reasoned order if amounts are found due, within 75 days of the Petitioner's representation (to be submitted within 15 days per counsel's instructions); liberty to pursue remedy under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for gratuity; liberty to approach the Civil Court for recovery; the order is not to be treated as the beginning of a cause of action. No monetary award made.

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court, in writ jurisdiction, should direct recovery of salary differential, gratuity and leave encashment amounts from a private unaided educational institution on disputed facts, or whether the employee must first pursue the remedy before Respondent No. 2 / under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the writ petition not being a recovery suit.

Court's answer

In matters where employees seek recovery of unpaid or disputed amounts from an employer, the High Court should not treat a writ petition like a recovery suit and pass orders on disputed facts (adopting the Supreme Court's repeated reminder).

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No. 2 (Deputy Direction of Education, Mumbai Region) is directed to inquire into the claims: if, after proper inquiry and verification of records, it concludes that amounts are due from the Management to the Petitioner, it may pass a reasoned order.

Key takeaways

The inquiry by Respondent No. 2, with notice to and hearing of all stakeholders (Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and the Petitioner), is to be completed within 75 days from the date of submission of the Petitioner's representation (counsel undertook to tender it with calculations within 15 days).ratio¶29
For his gratuity claim, the Petitioner is at liberty to avail of the remedy under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.ratio¶29
The present order shall not be treated as the beginning of a cause of action; if aggrieved by the employer's non-payment, the Petitioner may approach the Civil Court for recovery of amounts.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Coram Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ., disposed Writ Petition No. 5179 of 2024 (M. Michael Raj v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) on 25 February 2025. The petitioner sought directions for recovery from a private unaided educational institution of: (a) Rs. 35,24,516/- as differential salary applying the 7th Pay Commission pay-scale for the post of Head Master; (b) Rs. 20,00,000/- gratuity without any Form I notice under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; (c) Rs. 9,35,500/- leave encashment; and (d) deposit of Rs. 60 Lakhs in Court. Recalling the Supreme Court's reminder that an employee's writ petition for unpaid or disputed dues should not be treated like a recovery suit or decided on disputed facts, and noting the petitioner had not approached Respondent No. 2 (Deputy Direction of Education, Mumbai Region), the Court directed Respondent No. 2 to notify the institution (Respondent Nos. 4 and 5) and the petitioner, hear all stakeholders, verify records and pass a reasoned order if dues are found recoverable, completing the exercise within 75 days of the petitioner's representation (counsel undertaking to file it within 15 days). Liberty was granted to pursue the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 remedy for gratuity and to approach the Civil Court for recovery; the order was expressly declared not to begin any cause of action. No monetary relief was awarded by the Court.

Digitally signed by ARUNA ARUNA SANDEEP SANDEEP TALWALKAR TALWALKAR Date: 2025.02.2810:00:30 +0530 2.WP5179.2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 5179 OF 2024

M. Michael Raj. … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents.

Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Rajendra B. Khaire i/b. Mr. Vinayak R. Kumbhar, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Akshay Patkar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE : 25^th FEBRUARY, 2025

P.C. :

By this Petition, the Petitioner desires that the High Court

should recover the following amounts from a private unaided educational

institution :-

(a) An amount of Rs. 35,24,516/-, as being the differential amount of salary by applying the 7^th Pay Commission pay-scale for the post of Head Master.

(b) Without issuing any notice under Form I of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to the employer, the Petitioner prays that this Court should direct the Management to pay Rs. 20,00,000/-, towards Gratuity.

1

Talwalkar

2.WP5179.2024.odt

(c) This Court should direct the Management to pay Rs.9,35,500/-, towards leave encashment benefits.

(d) This Court should direct the Management to deposit Rs. 60 Lakhs in this Court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again reminded that in matters where in the employees desire to recover unpaid amounts or disputed amounts from an employer, the High Court should not treat a Writ Petition like a recovery suit and pass orders on disputed facts.

Be that as it may, the Petitioner is yet to approach Respondent No. 2, who is the Deputy Direction of Education, Mumbai Region. This Writ Petition is directly filed in the High Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus against a private management.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits on instructions that he would tender a detailed representation along with the necessary calculations and supporting documents, to Respondent No. 2 within a period of 15 days from today.

We, therefore, direct Respondent No. 2 to issue notice to the

2

Talwalkar

2.WP5179.2024.odt

Educational Institution, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, as well as the Petitioner and grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders. After a proper inquiry and verification of the records, if Respondent No. 2 arrives at a conclusion that certain amounts are due to be recovered from the Management to be paid to the Petitioner, he may pass a reasoned order. Let this exercise be completed within 75 days from the date of the submission of the representation by the Petitioner. In the alternative, if the Petitioner, to the extent of his claim for gratuity, desires to avail of a remedy under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, he would be at liberty.

We make it clear that this order shall not be treated as the beginning of a cause of action and if the Petitioner is aggrieved by the non-payment by the employer, he may approach the Civil Court for recovery of amounts.

In view of the above, this Petition is disposed off.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

3

Talwalkar