Bombay High Court
Shri. Suresh Mahadeorao Ahio And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr Its ... on 30 August, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
wp.162.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO.162/2016
1) Shri Suresh Mahadeorao Ahio,
Aged about 57 years, occu: Laboratory Assistant
R/o Rashtrasant Ward, Arvi, Dist. Wardha.
2) Shri Vijay Panjabrao Shende
Aged about 41 years, occu: Junior Lecturer
R/o Swapnapurti Apartment
Sai Nagar, Arvi, Dist.Wardha.
3) Shri Sanjay Prabhakarrao Kite
Aged about 42 years, occu: Assistant Teacher
E/o Shakuntala Niwas, Dattawadi
Cherilayout Arvi, Dist. Wardha.
4) Shri Nitin Kashinathrao Bodke
Aged about 42 years, occu: Junior Lecturer
R/o Maharanpratap Ward, Near Datta Temple
Arvi Dist.Wardha.
5) Action Committee of Employees of
Grant-in-Aid High School, Middle School &
Junior College of Municipal Council, Arvi
Through its working President -
Shri Vishweshwar Tulshiramji Payale
Aged about 44 years,
R/o 303, Swapnapurti Apartment
Sai Nagar, Arvi Dist. Wardha. ..PETITIONERS
v e r s u s
1) State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) Director of Education
Pune, State of Maharashtra
wp.162.16
3) The Deputy director of Education
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
4) Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Wardha. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. A. Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. D.P. Thakre, Additional Government Pleader for Respondents
............................................................................................................................
CORAM: B.R.GAVAI &
V
.M.DESHPANDE , JJ
.
DATED : 30 August, 2016
th
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER B.R. GAVAI, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court praying for quashing
and setting aside the order dated 24th July, 2015 passed by the Desk Officer of
the respondent no.1-State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, School
Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. The petitioners have
also prayed for a declaration that the petitioners and the dependents of the
petitioners are entitled for the benefits of medical reimbursement, in view of
the Government Resolution dated 20th February, 2009.
3. We had passed an order dated 23rd August 2016, since we
noticed that Shri N.P. Thorat, the Desk Officer in the Office of the Respondent
No.1, had addressed as many as three contradictory communications and had
wp.162.16
directed him to remain personally present in the Court and show cause as to
why an action should not be taken against him for taking contradictory stand
in the aforesaid three communications. Accordingly, Shri Nilkanth Popat
Thorat, Desk Officer, is personally present in the Court along with his
affidavit.
4. In accordance with the Government Resolution dated 20th
February 2009, the petitioners who were employees of the Schools managed
by the Nagar Parishad through Municipal Council, had applied for
reimbursement of the medical expenditure incurred on their treatment or the
treatment of their dependents. The Municipal Council recommended the same
to the Education Officer and the Education Officer, in turn, recommended the
same to the State of Maharashtra. The State of Maharashtra vide
communication dated 3.2.2015 sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,57,260/- in
respect of treatment of the petitioners and their dependents. However, it
appears that the communication was addressed by the respondent no.4-
Education Officer to the Desk Officer in the office of the respondent no.1
dated 16th April, 2015 seeking his guidance. In response to the said
communication, Shri N.P.Thorat, Desk Officer addressed the communication
dated 24th July, 2015 to the Deputy Director of Education, thereby informing
him that the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 12th May, 1989
were not applicable to the employees of the Municipal Council. However, in
wp.162.16
response to an information sought under the Right to Information Act, said
Shri Thorat, gave an information to the petitioners that the benefits of
reimbursement of the medical expenditure is applicable to 100% grant-in-aid
Secondary & Higher Secondary Schools managed by the Municipal Councils.
5. It could thus be seen that the said Shri N.P.Thorat has addressed
three conflicting communications. Vide first one dated 3.2.2015, he had
sanctioned the reimbursement of the medical expenditure in his own
signature. Vide another communication dated 24th July 2015, he had
addressed another communication informing the Deputy Director that the
employees of the Municipal Council are not entitled to medical
reimbursement. Not only that, he has gone to the extent of extending a
threat to the Deputy Director as to why an action should not be taken against
him and the Education Officer for having acted contrary to the Government
Resolution. Again, vide communication dated 19.2.2016, he had made a volte
face and informed the petitioners, in response to the application made under
the Right to Information Act, that the employees of the Schools managed by
the Municipal Council are entitled to the benefits of medical reimbursement.
6. In response to the notice issued by us, in the affidavit which has
been filed by Shri Thorat, he has stated that the Government Resolution
dated 20th February 2009 is clear. He has further stated that his
wp.162.16
communications dated 23rd February, 2015 and 19th November, 2016 are
incorrect. He has stated that though he does not justify the mistake he has
committed, the mistake was on account of 'heavy pressure of work and
due to inadvertence" and therefore has tendered the unconditional apology.
He has further stated that his communications dated 3rd February, 2015 is
incorrect. He has further stated that the Resolution dated 20th February,2009
is only applicable insofar as the teachers in the Municipal Corporation and
Municipal Council and Nagar Parishad, who are teaching in primary schools.
It is further stated that since the petitioners are not working in Primary School,
the said Government Resolution is not applicable.
7. We find that said Shri Thorat has not changed his stance not
only once but at least on four occasions. However, we find that his
interpretation on the Government Resolution dated 20th February, 2009 as is
reflected in the affidavit, is totally incorrect.
8. It could be seen that the basic Government Resolution making
applicable the benefits to the teachers in recognised grant-in-aid Schools is of
12th May, 1989. Perusal of the said Government Resolution would reveal that
prior to the said Government Resolution, the benefit of reimbursement of
medical expenses was applicable only to Government employees, Zilla
Parishad employees, University and College teaching as well as non-teaching
wp.162.16
employees. However, vide said Government Resolution, the Government
resolved to make this benefit applicable to the teaching as well as non-
teaching staff in recognised aided, private, primary school, secondary school,
high school, colleges and technical school.
9. What has been done vide Government Resolution dated 20 th
February, 2009 is only determining the authority who would be competent
to grant approval to the proposal received for medical reimbursement. The
preamble of the said Resolution states that vide Government Resolution dated
4.1.1973, a provision has been made for grant of approval to the medical
reimbursement proposal in case of teaching, non-teaching employees working
in the schools run by the Schools, Boards of the Municipal Corporations/
Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats. The said Government Resolution
makes it amply clear that the vide Government Resolution, dated 12th May
1989, the benefits of medical reimbursement have been made applicable to
aided, private, primary, secondary, higher secondary teaching colleges and
technical schools. The said Government Resolution also states that the
authority who shall be competent to grant approval to the proposals upto
the limit of Rs. 40,000/- in case of schools managed by Municipal
Corporations etc. is not determined and the said aspect was under
consideration of the Government. The Government Resolution therefore states
that in case of the amount above Rs. 40,000/-, the competent authority is the
wp.162.16
Secretary of the concerned Department. It however provides that in case of
the medical reimbursement below an amount of Rs. 40,000/- in case of the
employees working in the schools managed by the Municipal
Corporation/Municipal Council/ Nagar Panchayat, the Administrative Officer
of the concerned Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council and Nagar
Panchayat shall be the competent authority. In that view of the matter, we
find that the stand taken in the affidavit, is upon misreading of the
Government Resolution.
10. We are of the considered view that the Deputy Director of
Education, Nagpur after rightly understanding the provision, had
recommended the proposal of the petitioners for grant of medical
reimbursement. We find that the State Government in its communication
dated 3rd February, 2015 through said Shri N.P. Thorat, had rightly granted
the proposal submitted by the Deputy Director. We find that the
communication dated 24th July 2015 addressed by Shri Thorat to the Deputy
Director, was totally unwarranted.
11. We are of the considered view that the stand taken in the
affidavit is totally unsustainable. If the stand, as stated in the affidavit is to
be accepted, the Government Resolution dated 12th May 1989 is to be totally
ignored. Apart from that, it will lead to a anomalous situation. In the same
wp.162.16
Municipal Council if a teacher is working in a primary school, he/she would
be entitled to the said Government Resolution. However if another employee
working in the same school but teaching in secondary or higher secondary
classes, he/she would not be entitled to the benefit. Likewise a teacher
working in private aided Higher or Secondary school which comes under the
control of the Education Officer, the teacher would be entitled to the benefit.
However a teacher working in the school managed by the Municipal Council/
Municipal Corporation in secondary, higher secondary, which also comes under
the control of the same Education Officer, the teacher would not be entitled
to the said benefit. We, therefore, find that the stand taken by the
respondent-State is unsustainable in law. The Petition is therefore deserves to
be allowed. Hence the following order :-
ORDER
i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 24th July, 2015 issued by the Desk Officer
is quashed and set aside.
iii) It is held that the teaching as well as non-teaching staff employed in a
primary, secondary, higher secondary school, Technical school is entitled to
the benefit of the expenses on medical reimbursement, in view of the
Government Resolution dated 12th May 1989. Consequently, the petitioners
would also be entitled to the benefit of the Government Resolution.
iv) It is directed that the order issued by the State of Maharashtra dated 3rd
wp.162.16
February, 2015 shall hold the field. The amount sanctioned as per the said
order shall be disbursed to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from
today.
v) The learned Additional Government Pleader is requested to forward a
copy of this judgment and order to the Principal Secretary, School Education,
with a direction that if any of cases of the employees which are similar to that
of the petitioners are pending, either with himself or with any of his
subordinate officers, the same shall be decided expeditiously, in the light of
the directions stated herein-above. He is further directed to circulate a copy
of this judgment to the Director of Education, all the Deputy Directors of
Education and the all the Education Officers within the state of Maharashtra
so that they can take necessary steps in respect of the proposal of the
similarly circumstanced employees.
vi) The notice issued to Shri N.P. Thorat stands discharged.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
wp.162.16
C E R T I F I C AT E
" I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true
and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order."
Uploaded by: N.B.Sahare
P.S.
Uploaded on: 02.09.2016.
