1 WP.3311.00
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3311 OF 2000.
Kewalram Raghuji Humane,
aged 58 years, Occ. Service as
Headmaster, Anand Vidyalaya
Tatha Anand Junior College,
Bembal, Tahsil : Mul,
District Chandrapur. ..... PETITIONER.
....Versus....
1] State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Education & Employment,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
2] Senior Auditor (Secondary),
Education Department, Zilla
Parishad, Chandrapur, Tahsil
& District Chandrapur,
3] Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Region, Nagpur,
4] Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur,
Tahsil & District Chandrapur.
5] Dr. Ambedkar Study Circle,
Chandrapur, through its Secretary,
District Chandrapur, resident of
Vihirgaon, Behind Old Railway
Station, Mul, Taluka Mul,
District Chandrapur,
6] Bhalchandra s/o Rajeshwar
Ramteke, Ambedkar Ward,
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 00:21:46 :::
2 WP.3311.00
Near Nagar Parishad,
Bhadravati, Taluka Bhadravati,
District Chandrapur. ...... RESPONDENTS.
Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for the petitioner,
Mr. V.P. Maldhure, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent
nos. 1 to 4.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 8, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI , J.) 1] Heard respective Counsel for petitioner and respondent nos. 1 to 4. Nobody appears for respondent nos. 5 & 6. 2] Challenge is to recovery sought to be made from petitioner on the ground that he could not have been paid salary as Headmaster when respondent no.6 Shri Ramteke was on that post. Objection taken in audit report on 31.3.1995 has been accepted and amount of Rs.55,903/- is ordered to be recovered from the petitioner. 3] This Court has in present matter stayed that recovery on 15.7.2002 subject to petitioner giving surety to Education Officer. Accordingly, the petitioner has complied with said order. However, at ::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 00:21:46 ::: 3 WP.3311.00 this stage, it is not in dispute that amount of Rs.55,903/- is recovered from respondent no.5 by the other respondents. 4] The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is situation that two persons came on same post is creation of respondent no.5 and petitioner cannot be made to suffer for that. Our attention has been invited to relevant events in this respect by the learned Counsel.
5] Learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 4 submits that as petitioner did not work as Headmaster when respondent no.6 was on that post, salary as Headmaster cannot be made over to petitioner. 6] Salary as Headmaster has been paid to petitioner already and it is question of recovery. Facts show that Shri Ramteke earlier Headmaster was terminated on 14.5.1974 and he succeeded before authorities in getting order of reinstatement. This order of reinstatement was questioned by management in Special Civil Application No. 2339/76. In that Special Civil Application, stay was given to reinstatement of Shri Ramteke on 10.3.1976. The S.C.A. was ultimately allowed on 26.11.1981 and reinstatement order issued in favour of Shri Ramteke by the Appellate Authority/Revisional ::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 00:21:46 ::: 4 WP.3311.00 Authority was set aside.
7] However, Shri Ramteke continued to function as Headmaster from 17.7.1977 till 31.12.1981 when he superannuated. The petitioner was then made a regular Headmaster with effect from 15.3.1982 and his services have been accordingly approved. However, it appears that after initial termination of Shri Ramteke, petitioner was appointed as Headmaster with effect from 1.7.1974. The Education Officer has on 19.11.1976 taken note of stay given to reinstatement of Shri Ramteke by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2339/76 and then asked management to continue petitioner as Incharge Headmaster, so as to avoid any complication arising out of need to pay salary to both persons as Headmaster. Even Accounts officer has on 18.10.1999 in a letter sent to respondent no.5 pointed out that between 1.7.1974 to 15.7.1977 petitioner worked as officiating/incharge Headmaster. 8] All these facts, therefore, need to be looked into when question of recovery is to be answered. The petitioner cannot be blamed at all for resulting situation. Termination order of Shri Ramteke dated 14.5.1974 is not in dispute and though Shri Ramteke succeeded in Appeal or Revision in procuring order of reinstatement, ::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 00:21:46 ::: 5 WP.3311.00 that order was stayed by High Court on 10.3.1976 and ultimately set aside on 26.11.1981 when Special Civil Application No. 2339/76 was allowed with the effect act of management in terminating services of Shri Ramteke on 14.5.1974 was upheld.
9] Consequently, it follows that appointment of petitioner as Headmaster from 1.7.1974 also cannot be objected to. Though authorities in Education Department have advised management to designate petitioner as officiating or in-charge Headmaster, that does not mean that petitioner was not a Headmaster. On the contrary, the Accounts Officer has in letter dated 18.10.1999 noted that during period from 1.7.1974 to 15.7.1977 petitioner worked as in-charge Headmaster. If petitioner worked as Headmaster, mere addition of word "In-charge" or "officiating" would not make any difference. He has been ultimately made a regular Headmaster on 15.3.1982. 10] Thus, petitioner working as Headmaster has received salary for the period in dispute and it cannot be treated as excess payment to him. It is respondent no.5 who permitted Shri Ramteke to function though there was restraining order granted on 10.3.1976 by this Court in petition filed by management only. We, therefore, find that no recovery can be effected from present petitioner. ::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 00:21:46 :::
6 WP.3311.00
11] Accordingly, we quash and set aside that recovery. The
surety given by petitioner is discharged. Writ Petition stands
disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
JUDGE. JUDGE.
J.
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 00:21:46 :::