W.P. No.7905/2006
(( 1 ))
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.7905 OF 2006
Sarla Sneh Mandal,
Bal Dnyan Mandir, Primary School,
Khadkeshwar, Aurangabad,
through its Secretary ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through Secretary,
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.
3. Superintendent,
Pay & G.P.F. Unit (Primary),
Education Department,
Aurangabad.
4. Smt. Suman d/o Lalit Reddy,
Age 42 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Flat No.E-2, Muthiyan Apartment,
Samarth Nagar, Aurangabad ... RESPONDENTS
.....
Shri B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for petitioner
Shri B.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent No.1
Shri U.R. Awate, Advocate for respondent No.4
.....
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4190 OF 2012 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.7905 OF 2006
Smt. Suman d/o Lalit Reddy,
Age 42 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Flat No.E-2, Muthiyan Apartment,
Samarth Nagar, Aurangabad. ... APPLICANT
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 01:16:02 :::
W.P. No.7905/2006
(( 2 ))
1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary,
School Education and
Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.
3. The Superintendent,
Pay and G.P.F. Unit (Primary),
Education Department,
Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS
(Original Respondent Nos.1 to 3)
4) Sarla Sneha Mandal
Bal Dnyan Mandir Primary School,
Khadkeshwar, Aurangabad,
through its Secretary,
Smt. Rajmati Saswade,
Age 57 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Near Dhanwantri Medical Store,
Khadkeshwar, Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENT
(Original Petitioner)
.....
Shri U.R. Awate, Advocate for applicant
Shri B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for writ petitioner
Shri B.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for State
.....
CORAM: RAVINDRA .V. GHUGE AND
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATED : 9th NOVEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.):
1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 30.10.2006 and 1.7.2006, passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, by which the petitioner is directed to pay 70% back wages to the employee Smt. Suman Lalit Reddy from their own coffers. ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 01:16:02 :::
W.P. No.7905/2006 (( 3 ))
2. We have considered the submissions of Shri Sagar Killarikar, learned Advocate for the petitioner management, learned A.G.P. and Shri Aute, learned counsel on behalf of the employee.
3. Since the whole issue pertains to the dispute with regard to the termination of the employee, who has not been arrayed as respondent in this petition, the said employee has preferred Civil Application No.4190/2012. Learned counsel for the respective sides do not oppose the said application for impleading the employee as respondent No.4 in this petition. The Civil Application No.4190/2012 is, therefore, allowed. The employee Smt. Suman Lalit Reddy is permitted to be arrayed as respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition. Learned Advocate waives notice.
4. Respondent No.4 was aggrieved by her termination dated 7.8.1996 at the hands of the petitioner. She approached the School Tribunal, Aurangabad in Appeal No.271/1996. By judgment dated 5.8.2000, the appeal was allowed, her termination was quashed and set aside, she was granted reinstatement with continuity in service with consequential benefits and 70% back wages along with costs of Rs.600/-. The said judgment has not been challenged by the petitioner before this Court, and as a consequence, by ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 01:16:02 ::: W.P. No.7905/2006 (( 4 )) passage of 17 years, the said judgment has attained finality.
5. It is in the said judgment dated 5.8.2000, that the School Tribunal directed the management specifically to pay the 70% back wages of the employee - respondent No.4. Though the Education Department was respondent No.4 before the School Tribunal, the direction to pay the back wages has been specifically made as against the petitioner Society.
6. Considering the above, and keeping in view that the judgment of the School Tribunal has attained finality, we cannot modify the said judgment in our extraordinary jurisdiction being exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the absence of any challenge. In this backdrop, the direction of the Education Department to the petitioner Society to make the payment of the 70% back wages can neither be termed as being perverse nor erroneous.
7. This petition being devoid of merit, is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
( SUNIL K. KOTWAL ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE )
JUDGE JUDGE
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 01:16:02 :::