1/4 2602WP4940.15-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4940 OF 2015
PETITIONER :- Dnaneshwar S/o Ramdas Nimsasrkar, Aged
about 35 years, Occ.-Service, R/o
Dharampur, Ward No.04, Aheri, Tq. Aheri,
Distt.Gadchiroli.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla
ig Parishad, Gadchiroli, Tq. And Distt.
Gadchiroli.
2) Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur
Divsion, Nagpur.
3) President, Dharmarao Shikshan Mandal,
Aheri, Tq. Aheri, Distt. Gadchiroli.
4) Secretary, Dharmarao Shikshan Mandal,
Aheri, Tq. Aheri, Distt. Gadchiroli.
5) Head Master, Raje Dharmarao High School,
Venkatraopetha, Tq. Aheri, Distt. Gadchiroli.
6) Head Master, Raje Dharmarao High School
and Junior College, Asarali, Tq. Sironcha,
Distt. Gadchiroli.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.S.Dhengale, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.K.L.Dharmadhikari, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr.Rugved Dhore, counsel for the respondent No.3 to 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATED : 26.02.2016 ::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:44:50 ::: 2/4 2602WP4940.15-Judgment O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order/report of the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli, dated 24/04/2015 directing the petitioner to approach the School Tribunal for redressal of his grievance in regard to non-payment of salary for a period of two years.
3. The petitioner was working in the school run and administered by the respondent No.3 at Aheri in Gadchiroli District, when he was transferred to the school at Asarali, Taluka Sironcha, District Gadchiroli. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not permitted to join in the school at Asarali and hence he was required to file Writ Petition No.5013 of 2013 for suitable directions against the respondents. It appears that by an order dated 09/02/2015, the writ petition was disposed of, since the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner was not permitted to join the school at Asarali did not survive, as during the pendency of the writ petition, he was permitted to join in the said school. The only grievance that survived in the writ petition was in regard to the non-payment of salary from the date on which the petitioner was relieved from the school at Aheri for joining ::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:44:50 ::: 3/4 2602WP4940.15-Judgment the school at Asarasli. Since it was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had tried to join the school at Asarali, but was prohibited from joining and since it was the case of the Management that the petitioner did not make any efforts to join in the school at Asarali and never turned up in the said school, this Court directed the Education Officer (Secondary) to decide the issue in regard to the payment of salary to the petitioner for the period of two years during which he had neither worked in the school at Aheri or at Asarali. A specific direction was issued against the Education Officer (Secondary), Gadchiroli to take suitable decision in the matter of payment of salary for the said period to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks. According to the petitioner, instead of taking a suitable decision after hearing the parties, the Education Officer has erroneously held in the impugned order that it would be necessary for the petitioner to approach the School Tribunal to seek the unpaid salary from the concerned respondents.
4. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Education Officer was not justified in refusing to decide the issue that could have been decided by the Education Officer. The School Tribunal may not have jurisdiction to decide the issue of salary only. The petitioner was permitted to join in the school at Asarali during the pendency of writ petition and since the services of the petitioner were not terminated, it was not necessary for the petitioner to approach the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the ::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:44:50 ::: 4/4 2602WP4940.15-Judgment Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The Education Officer (Secondary) was not justified in refusing to decide the issue that was directed to be decided by the Education Officer (Secondary) by this Court.
5. In the circumstances of the case, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Education Officer (Secondary), Gadchiroli for deciding the question in respect of the unpaid salary of the petitioner after hearing the petitioner and the Management. The petitioner and the Management undertake to appear before the Education Officer (Secondary), Gadchiroli on 14/03/2016 so that the issuance of notice to the parties could be dispensed with. The Education Officer (Secondary), Gadchiroli should decide the issue within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the parties.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:44:50 :::