Bombay High Court
Ku.Ranjana Purushottam Senad ... vs Deputy Director Of Edun.Nagpur & 2 ... on 9 June, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1/4 0906wp3544.98-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3544 OF 1998
PETITIONER :- Ku. Ranjana daughter of Purushottam Senad,
(now Sau. Ranjana wife of Ravindra Chatte),
aged - Major, resident of near Zenda Chowk,
Behind Natraj Cinema, Mahal, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur.
ig 2) Gramin Vikas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Umri (Nanda), Taluka-Saoner, District-
Nagpur, through its Secretary.
3) Shri Nawnath Mahila Uchcha Madhyamik
Vidyalaya, New Subhedar Layout, Nagpur,
through its Principal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Pimpalkhute, counsel h/f Mr. A. D. Mohgaonkar,
counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. N. R. Rode, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondent No.1.
None for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 09.06.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction
to the respondent No.1 to grant approval to the petitioner's
appointment as Junior Lecturer. The petitioner has also sought a
direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to pay the salary of the petitioner
for the period from 1993-94 till 30/04/1997. The writ petition was
2/4 0906wp3544.98-Judgment
decided by this Court on 02/12/2014 and the same was dismissed, as
according to this Court, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the
order of her termination, dated 22/11/1996 was dismissed. The
petitioner applied for restoration of the writ petition. This Court,
restored the writ petition by the order, dated 21/04/2016 only in
respect of the prayer made by the petitioner for salary for the period
from 1994-95 till 30/04/1997. The prayer of the petitioner for grant of
approval had been rendered infructuous, as the appeal filed against the
order of her dismissal was dismissed by the School Tribunal.
2. Shri Pimpalkhute, the learned counsel holding for Shri
Mohgaonkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the
petitioner was continuously working with the respondent-Management
from 1993 till 30/04/1997 and it would be necessary to direct the
respondent-Management to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner. It
is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Junior College Lecturer
and hence, it was necessary for the respondent-Management to pay the
salary to the petitioner. It is stated that the financial difficulty of the
Management cannot be a ground for non payment of salary to an
employee. The learned counsel submitted that a direction be issued
against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pay the arrears of salary to the
petitioner.
3. Shri Rode, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, submitted that the Deputy
3/4 0906wp3544.98-Judgment
Director of Education had refused to grant approval to the appointment
of the petitioner and hence, the salary of the petitioner cannot be paid
from the Government Exchequer. It is stated that the appointment of
the petitioner was made, despite backlog and hence, the approval to the
appointment of the petitioner was refused.
4. None appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3,
though served. We have, however, perused the reply filed on behalf of
the respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is stated by the respondent Nos.2 and 3
in the reply that the petitioner was permitted to give some lectures in
the Junior College in the year 1993-94 for gaining experience. It is
stated that after the petitioner improved her educational qualifications,
the petitioner was appointed by the Management. It is stated that the
petitioner had given in writing that she would not claim the salary from
the Management in case, the approval to her appointment is refused by
the Education Authorities. It is stated that the petitioner was paid
consolidated salary of Rs.700/- every month while in service. It is
stated that the petitioner has abandoned the job on 03/04/1997 and
this Court may not fasten the liability on the respondent-Management
to pay the arrears of salary.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the submissions made on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and
3, it appears that a direction to the respondent-Management to pay the
arrears of unpaid salary to the petitioner needs to be granted. It is
4/4 0906wp3544.98-Judgment
admitted by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the petitioner was working
with the respondent Nos.2 and 3 since 1994 till 30/04/1997. It is the
case of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 that consolidated salary of Rs.700/-
per month was paid to the petitioner. The respondent Nos.2 and 3
could not have paid consolidated salary of Rs.700/- to the petitioner
while she was in service. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot rely on
the writing of the petitioner that she would not claim the salary, if
approval to her appointment is refused for denying her claim for salary.
Such an undertaking could not have been secured by the Management
from the petitioner, as it is against public policy. In the circumstances
of the case, it would be necessary for the Management to pay the
arrears of difference of unpaid salary to the petitioner for the period
from July, 1994 till 30/04/1997.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to pay the arrears of
difference of salary to the petitioner for the period from July, 1994 till
30/04/1997, excluding the amount of Rs.700/- that was paid to the
petitioner towards consolidated salary every month. Rule is made
absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
