1 wp241.04.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 241 OF 2004
Sunilkumar Madanlal Agrawal,
aged about 36 years, Occ. Jr. College Lecturer,
R/o. Opposite Panjab National Bank,
Gondia .... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
School Education Department,
through its Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3. Director of Education, Maharashtra State
Pune.
4. Mahavir Marwadi School Society,
Vitthalnagar, Gondia, through
its Secretary.
5. Mahavir Marwadi Junior College of
Science, Vitthalnagar, Gondia,
Tq. And Distt. Gondia, through
its Principal
6. Shri Anil K. Mendhe, Jr. College Lecturer,
Mahavir Marwadi Junior College of
Science, Vitthalnagar, Gondia,
Tq. And Distt. Gondia,
7. Shri Ajay B. Shamka, Jr. College Lecturer,
Mahavir Marwadi Junior College of
Science, Vitthalnagar, Gondia,
Tq. And Distt. Gondia, ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2017 00:38:38 :::
2 wp241.04.odt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri H.A.Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioner
Ms. Geeta Tiwari, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Shri M.V.Samarth, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5
Shri Anand S. Thotange, Advocate h/f Shri Mujanil, Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, AND
Mrs. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
rd DATE : 3 JULY, 2017 .
ORAL JUDGMENT 1] The only question urged and remains to be decided in this case is the payment of interest on the amount of Rs.3,04,925/- paid to the petitioner on 13.12.2011 towards part payment of arrears of salary and balance of Rs.20,000/- paid on 15.05.2012 and what should be the rate of interest if to be awarded on such payment.
2] The petitioner was appointed as lecturer on 01.07.1994 in the subject of Physics in the school run by respondent No.4 - Mahavir Marwadi School Society, Gondia. The petitioner was terminated on 06.05.1996. He preferred Appeal No. STN 133 of 1996, which was allowed on 27.04.2000 granting reinstatement and full back-wages. Writ Petition No. 2247 of 2000 filed by the management was ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2017 00:38:38 ::: 3 wp241.04.odt dismissed on 07.09.2000. The petitioner was ultimately reinstated in service on 15.02.2002 and since then he was working on the post till he resigned.
3] This writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondent No.4 Management and respondent No.5 Headmistress to submit the proposal to the respondent No.2 Education Officer seeking approval to the appointment/reinstatement of the petitioner as a full time teacher/lecturer in the Junior College as per the letters of the Deputy Director issued on 30.03.2003, 17.05.2003, 23.10.2003, 18.12.2003, 13.06.2003. The petitioner also claims relief of direction to the Deputy Director of Education to grant approval to the appointment/reinstatement of the petitioner with effect from 31.05.2000. It also claims the payment of arrears of salary and the interest at the rate of 12% thereon from 16.02.2002 to 13.12.2011. 4] On 25.02.2004, this Court had passed an order as under;
"In view of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Assistant Director of Education on behalf of the Deputy Director of Education, particularly the averments made in paras 7 and 8, it would be proper that the management sends a fresh proposal in ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2017 00:38:38 ::: 4 wp241.04.odt respect of the petitioner for approval within a period of two weeks so that the needful can be done by the respondent, Education Department. Matter be listed before the Court after four weeks".
The aforesaid order was passed by this Court after taking into consideration the stand taken by the Deputy Director of Education in the affidavit dated 13.02.2004 filed before this Court. Paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the said affidavit to which the reference is found in the order dated 25.02.2004 are reproduced below.
"7. This respondent humbly submits that there is no illegality committed in granting the approval to respondent nos. 6 and 7 as alleged by the petitioner. Respondent nos. 6 and 7 are eligible and qualified as a full time Junior College teacher as per the norms laid down by Government. Respondent No.6 is appointed to teach Mathematics for 16 periods and the 8 remaining period of physics are also allotted to him as already stated above. There are total 32 periods of Physics, out of which 24 should be allotted to the petitioner as a full time junior college teacher and remaining is allotted to respondent no.6. As regards respondent no.7, the approval is granted as a Junior College teacher in the subject of Biology from Session 2000-2001 as proposal was received from the Head Master and the same was as per rules. The case of petitioner is different from that of respondent nos. 6 and 7 and approval granted to respondent nos. 6 and 7 does not affect the workload available for petitioner for 24 hours to teach Physics for which he is qualified.
8. This respondent is again submitting that the proposal for petitioner to grant approval was never received by this respondent. This respondent was ever ready to grant approval to the petitioner as a full time teacher since the workload is available. The contention of the petitioner that the respondent overlooked the irregularities while issuing grant to junior college run by respondent management is denied.
We also noticed paragraph no.3 of the said affidavit, which is reproduced below.
"3. It is submitted that the petitioner is having a qualifications M.Sc. (Physics), B.Ed. The total workload for Physics in the ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2017 00:38:38 ::: 5 wp241.04.odt respondent institution is 32 periods and there is no other qualified teacher to teach the Physics subject. 8 periods workload of Physics is allotted to Maths teacher, which leaves 24 periods workload for Physics subject. Accordingly, there is full workload for teacher in Physics. Since the petitioner is qualified to teach physics, it is he who should first be allotted 24 periods workload for physics subject and the remaining balance period to be allotted to other person. This respondent on a representation made by the petitioner on 15.04.2002 and 24.02.2002 issued a letter dated 17.05.2002 to the respondent management and Head Master directing them to allow the workload, which was allotted prior to his termination and to pay the regular salary".
5] The Deputy Director of Education passed an order dated 23.03.2004 granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner as full time teacher in the subject of Physics from 16.02.2002. We also found that in spite of repeated reminders by the Office of the Deputy Director of Education, respondent nos. 4 and 5 failed to forward the salary bills of the petitioner for sanction till 2011. Upon submission of such bills in the year 2011 by the management, an amount of Rs.3,04,925/- was paid to the petitioner through the State exchequer on 13.12.2011, whereas the balance of Rs.20,000/- was paid by the management on 15.05.2012. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Yuvraj Nathuji Rodye vrs. Chairman; Member (Administration) reported in 2008 CJ (Bom) 3291; dealing with the similar situation and granting ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2017 00:38:38 ::: 6 wp241.04.odt the payment of interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the due date of payment.
6] From the factual position narrated above, we find that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have deliberately delayed the submission of bills to the Deputy Director of Education, from the date of passing of the order granting approval on 23.03.2004 till the date of actual release of payment on 13.12.2011 and 15.05.2012. We do not find any justification put forward by the respondents in spite of passing an order by this Court on 29.06.2017 permitting the respondents to file an affidavit, if any, on or before the next date to oppose the claim of interest. Shri Samarth, the learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4 and 5 prays for one week time to file an affidavit in the matter. However, we are not inclined to grant such time as the matter is pending since 2004 and in spite of order dated 29.06.2017 passed by this Court in presence of parties, the affidavit has not been filed till this date. Shri Samarth, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5 vehemently opposed the grant of interest at 12% per annum as claimed in the petition. He submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any interest as the ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2017 00:38:38 ::: 7 wp241.04.odt grant of approval by the Deputy Director of Education is on 23.03.2004. It is not possible to accept such contention, except to reduce the rate of interest from 12% per annum to 8% per annum.
7] In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the amount of Rs.3,04,925/- from 23.03.2004 till 13.12.2011 and at the same rate on an amount of Rs.20,000/- from 23.03.2004 to 15.05.2012. The amount of interest be paid to the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from today, failing which it shall carry penal interest at the rate of 24% per annum till the date of realization from 13.12.2011.
Rule is made absolute in these terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rvjalit
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2017 00:38:38 :::