Bombay High Court
Zashiram S/O. Shri Domaji Thaware vs Saibaba High School, Through Its ... on 10 June, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp3365.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 3365 OF 2015.
Zashiram son of Domaji Thaware,
Aged about 48 years, Occupation -
Teacher, resident of 10, Jagruti,
Dr. Khankojenagar, Manewada,
Cement Road, Nagpur. ....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. Saibaba High School,
Makar Dhakola, Katol Road,
Nagpur, through its Headmistress.
2. President/Secretary,
Bahu Uddeshiya Tri-Rup Shikshan
Sanstha, running Saibaba High
School Makar Dhakola, Katol Road,
Nagpur.
3. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
4. Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Region, Sitaburdi Road,
Neat Patwardhan School,
Nagpur. ....RESPONDENTS
.
::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:54:26 :::
Judgment wp3365.15
2
-----------------------------------
Mr. A. Shelat, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. C.N. Adgaonkar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
------------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : JUNE 10, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By their consent and
considering the nature of controversy, Rule is issued in the matter and the
same is made returnable forthwith.
2. Civil Application No.1153/2016 is listed today for consideration.
It is not in dispute that claim of petitioner for release of incremental arrears
is already satisfied. Civil Application has been taken out, pointing that the
Management has to pay interest on account of its belated receipt by the
petitioner.
3. Shri Shelat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
Judgment wp3365.15
that the petitioner is found entitled to receive increment on 01.08.1995, but,
the management has released the same to him from 01.08.1998. On
12.05.2003, the competent Authority i.e. the Education Officer has directed
the Management to submit necessary papers and bill. That action was not
taken, hence there is delay. He further adds that the directions issued by the
Education Officer to pay interest, have attained finality.
4.
Shri Mohgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.
1 and 2, submits that only on account of initial recruitment on year to year
basis from 01.08.1994 till 01.08.1997, the increments were not released.
On 01.08.1997, the petitioner was appointed on probation and hence, his
increments were released from 01.08.1998. He further submits that there
was a dispute in relation to seniority which was going on, and that dispute
was settled in December, 2014 hence, there is no delay on the part of the
management. By way of abundant precaution, he adds that prayer of
petitioner for interest can be referred to the Education Officer, and that
office can verify the records and take appropriate decision.
5. Shri Adgaonkar, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of respondent
nos. 3 and 4, submits that the Education Officer has in the year 2003 itself
found the management responsible in the matter.
Judgment wp3365.15
6. Shri Shelat, learned counsel for the petitioner is relying upon
certain judgments where in similar situation this Court has awarded 9%
interest.
7. We do not wish to go into any precedence. The facts show that
the petitioner was initially recruited on year to year basis, and for the first
time he was given appointment on 01.08.1997, on probation. It is in this
situation, that the increments were not released from 01.08.1995. However,
when petitioner made grievance, the Education Officer issued directions and
that directions were never questioned. It is seen that though the petitioner
made his grievance before the Education Officer on 24.07.2000, the
Education Officer has issued directions on 12.05.2003. Thus, after
12.05.2003 the amount ought to have been paid within a reasonable time.
The amount is received by the petitioner during the pendency of the
petition. We therefore, find that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are responsible
for this delay.
8. Taking over all view of the matter, we direct the respondent nos. 1
and 2 to pay interest calculated at 6% on the incremental amount
(difference), from 12.05.2003 till the date on which the amount is actually
Judgment wp3365.15
paid to the petitioner. The interest amount shall be paid to the petitioner
within a period of three months from today. If the amount is not so paid,
the said amount shall carry interest @ 10%, thereafter, till it is received by
the petitioner.
9. In view above, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. Rule is made
absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
