Bombay High Court
Gautam S/O Dakharam Nakhate vs The Secretary Rashtra Sant ... on 6 June, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp88.97
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 88 OF 1997.
Gautam s/o Dakharam Nakhate,
Aged - Adult, resident of at and
post - Soni (Chapral), Taluka -
Lakhandur, District Bhandara. ....PETITIONER.
ig VERSUS
1. The Secretary,
Rashtra Sant Shikshan Sanstha,
Soni (Chapral), Taluka -
Lakhandur, District Bhandara.
2. Rashtra Sant Shikshan Sanstha,
through its Secretary,
Soni (Chapral), Taluka -
Lakhandur, District Bhandara.
3. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Tahsil and District
Nagpur.
4. The Director of Education,
Shiksha Mandal, Pune.
5. The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Bhandara,
Tahsil and District Bhandara.
6. Head Master,
Lokmanya Vidyalay,
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:26:45 :::
Judgment wp88.97
2
Soni (Chapral), Taluka -
Lakhandur, District Bhandara. ....RESPONDENTS
.
-----------------------------------
Mr. G. Belsare, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. S.K. Pardhy, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Ms. P.Rane, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.5.
------------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
ig KUM. I.K. JAIN , JJ.
DATED : JUNE 06, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. On 18.04.2016 we have passed the following order :
" Heard for some time. The Education Officer
[Secondary], Zilla Parishad, Bhandara in affidavit in reply
has pointed out that petitioner has served from 1.1.1994 to
31.12.1995. The management has filed reply affidavit
contending that it had terminated services of petitioner and
termination order was sent by UPC. However, petitioner
managed with concerned Head Master and continued to
work. Thus, indirectly the management has accepted that
Judgment wp88.97
even after termination petitioner has continued to work.
Shri Belsare appearing for petitioner however
states that since last two years petitioner is prohibited from
working and petitioner has not questioned the said
prohibition by filing any proceedings.
In view of this material available on record and
fact that petitioner is about 41 years, we grant him time of
two weeks to take necessary steps.
List after two weeks."
3. Shri Belsare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner upon
instructions states that the petitioner shall file appropriate proceedings
before the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of
Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, if liberty is
given to him. He points out that as per law settled by this Court, approval is
not condition precedent and for period for which the petitioner has worked,
he has not been paid salary.
4. Shri Pardhy, learned Counsel disputes this. According to him, the
services of petitioner were terminated, as such, there is no question of
paying him any salary.
5. The issue whether services are terminated by issuing a termination
Judgment wp88.97
order or then it is "otherwise termination" under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S.
Act, is disputed one and can be looked into by the School Tribunal. The
entitlement of the petitioner to wages will depend on answer to this
question. The petitioner can point out to the School Tribunal that he has not
received any salary, and management can also rebut the said contention by
producing necessary documents.
6.
In this situation, as the matter has remained pending before this
Court since 1997, we grant leave to petitioner to file appropriate
proceedings before the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S.Act in
accordance with law. If such proceeding is filed, the School Tribunal shall
consider the entire controversy as is expected of it at the earliest. We grant
time of 6 weeks to the petitioner to file such appeal.
7. Keeping all rival contentions open and with above liberty to
petitioner, we dispose of the Writ Petition. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
