Bombay High Court
Dnyaneshwar S/O. Ramdas ... vs Education Officer (Sec.), Zilla ... on 26 February, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1/4 2602WP4940.15-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4940 OF 2015
PETITIONER :- Dnaneshwar S/o Ramdas Nimsasrkar, Aged
about 35 years, Occ.-Service, R/o
Dharampur, Ward No.04, Aheri, Tq. Aheri,
Distt.Gadchiroli.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla
ig Parishad, Gadchiroli, Tq. And Distt.
Gadchiroli.
2) Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur
Divsion, Nagpur.
3) President, Dharmarao Shikshan Mandal,
Aheri, Tq. Aheri, Distt. Gadchiroli.
4) Secretary, Dharmarao Shikshan Mandal,
Aheri, Tq. Aheri, Distt. Gadchiroli.
5) Head Master, Raje Dharmarao High School,
Venkatraopetha, Tq. Aheri, Distt. Gadchiroli.
6) Head Master, Raje Dharmarao High School
and Junior College, Asarali, Tq. Sironcha,
Distt. Gadchiroli.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.S.Dhengale, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.K.L.Dharmadhikari, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr.Rugved Dhore, counsel for the respondent No.3 to 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATED : 26.02.2016
2/4 2602WP4940.15-Judgment
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is
heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order/report
of the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli, dated
24/04/2015 directing the petitioner to approach the School Tribunal for
redressal of his grievance in regard to non-payment of salary for a
period of two years.
3. The petitioner was working in the school run and
administered by the respondent No.3 at Aheri in Gadchiroli District,
when he was transferred to the school at Asarali, Taluka Sironcha,
District Gadchiroli. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was
not permitted to join in the school at Asarali and hence he was required
to file Writ Petition No.5013 of 2013 for suitable directions against the
respondents. It appears that by an order dated 09/02/2015, the writ
petition was disposed of, since the grievance of the petitioner that the
petitioner was not permitted to join the school at Asarali did not
survive, as during the pendency of the writ petition, he was permitted
to join in the said school. The only grievance that survived in the writ
petition was in regard to the non-payment of salary from the date on
which the petitioner was relieved from the school at Aheri for joining
3/4 2602WP4940.15-Judgment
the school at Asarasli. Since it was the case of the petitioner that the
petitioner had tried to join the school at Asarali, but was prohibited
from joining and since it was the case of the Management that the
petitioner did not make any efforts to join in the school at Asarali and
never turned up in the said school, this Court directed the Education
Officer (Secondary) to decide the issue in regard to the payment of
salary to the petitioner for the period of two years during which he had
neither worked in the school at Aheri or at Asarali. A specific direction
was issued against the Education Officer (Secondary), Gadchiroli to
take suitable decision in the matter of payment of salary for the said
period to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks. According to the
petitioner, instead of taking a suitable decision after hearing the parties,
the Education Officer has erroneously held in the impugned order that
it would be necessary for the petitioner to approach the School Tribunal
to seek the unpaid salary from the concerned respondents.
4. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Education Officer was
not justified in refusing to decide the issue that could have been decided
by the Education Officer. The School Tribunal may not have jurisdiction
to decide the issue of salary only. The petitioner was permitted to join in
the school at Asarali during the pendency of writ petition and since the
services of the petitioner were not terminated, it was not necessary for
the petitioner to approach the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the
4/4 2602WP4940.15-Judgment
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
Regulation Act, 1977. The Education Officer (Secondary) was not
justified in refusing to decide the issue that was directed to be decided
by the Education Officer (Secondary) by this Court.
5. In the circumstances of the case, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is
remanded to the Education Officer (Secondary), Gadchiroli for deciding
the question in respect of the unpaid salary of the petitioner after
hearing the petitioner and the Management. The petitioner and the
Management undertake to appear before the Education Officer
(Secondary), Gadchiroli on 14/03/2016 so that the issuance of notice to
the parties could be dispensed with. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Gadchiroli should decide the issue within a period of two months from
the date of appearance of the parties.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
