Bombay High Court
Dnyan Swardhan Mandal Wadhona ... vs Arun Vishwanath Pendam And Others on 22 April, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
wp2340.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 2340 OF 2016
1. Dnyan Sawardhan Mandal Wadhona,
Tahsil Nagbhid, Distt. Chandrapur
through its President
Sanjay Gulabrao Dorlikar,
aged 55 years,
r/o Chandrapur.
2. Samaj Sewa Vidyalaya, Wadhona,
through its Head Master,
Tahsil Nagbhid, Distt. Chandrapur. .... PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
1. Arun Vishwanath Pendam,
aged about 44 years, Occupation : Service,
r/o Wadhona,
Tahsil Nagbhid, Distt. Chandrapur.
2. Education Officer (Secondary)
Z.P. Chandrapur.
3. School Tribunal, Chandrapur,
through its Presiding Officer. .... RESPONDENTS.
Shri S.S. Sitani Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri A.Z. Jibhkate Advocate for Respondent no. 1.
Shri Shyam Ahirkar, AGP, for respondents 2 & 3.
.....
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED : 22.04.2016.
wp2340.16
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard. Issue notice to respondents. Shri Jibhkate,
learned counsel, waives notice for respondent no. 1. Learned
AGP waives notice for respondents 2 and 3.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of parties.
3. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged
the legality and correctness of the order dated 31.12.2015
passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Chandrapur,
thereby quashing and setting aside the action of the petitioners
amounting to termination of service of respondent no. 1 as peon
with petitioner no. 2-school.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
letter dated 19.10.2010 submitted by respondent no. 1 was
treated by the school management as the resignation letter and
accordingly his services were terminated by resignation and the
termination of respondent no. 1 was also acted upon, which is
evident from the fact that the respondent no. 1 availed of post
wp2340.16
retirement benefits. He also submits that the respondent no. 1
about 11 months after termination of his service has approached
the Education Officer and also to the School Tribunal. He submits
that all the facts have not been taken into consideration and
without making any enquiry, the learned Presiding Officer of the
School Tribunal has passed an illegal order, which is impugned in
this petition.
5.
Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 supports the
order and submits that the reasons mentioned by the School
Tribunal in para 24 of the impugned order would show as to how
the entire action of the petitioners is.
6. Learned AGP supports the order.
7. On perusal of the impugned order I do not find that
the arguments so canvassed on behalf of the petitioners could be
considered to be having any force in them. The letter dated
19.10.2010 was in fact a letter seeking voluntary retirement and
was not a letter resigning from the service given by the
respondent no. 1. I do not understand as to how this letter has
been construed to be a letter of resignation. It is also not clear as
wp2340.16
to how upon a letter of resignation having been submitted, the
services of the petitioner could have been terminated. If the
resignation letter was submitted it would have been either
accepted or rejected and if it was to be accepted, the action that
would have followed would be only of severing of relationship of
employer and employee and it would not amount to really
termination of any service.
8.
As regards the submission that the letter dated
19.10.2010 has been acted upon and the post retirement benefits
have been granted to respondent no. 1, I must say that if the
action taken by the petitioners basically is illegal, the payment of
post retirement benefits would not convert that action into an
action in accordance with law. In this background, the learned
Presiding Officer has rightly observed that the only course of
action that was permitted to the petitioner was termination of
services of respondent no. 1 under Rule 26 of the Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981
and that it would then mean that the petitioner would be required
to give three months notice prior to termination of service. That
has not been done in this case. Even the letter dated 19.10.2010 is
for seeking of voluntary retirement and since admittedly period of 20
wp2340.16
years was not completed, this letter also could not have been
accepted by the petitioner. In the circumstances, I find that the
order impugned in this case cannot be faulted with. No
interference is required. Writ petition is dismissed.
Rule discharged. No cost.
ig JUDGE
/TA/
