Bombay High Court
Kisan Vidya Prasarak Mandal vs Shriram Kisan More And Others on 10 March, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP 2322/97
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2322/1997
1 Kisan Vidya Prasarak Mandal,
Kisan Daji Patil High School,
At Savkheda, Tq. Amalner,
Dist. Jalgaon.
ig Through : Its Chairman.
2 Shri B.K. Patil,
Headmaster, Kisan Daji Patil
High School, at Savkheda,
Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.
...Petitioners...
Versus
1 Shriram S/o Kisan More,
Age : Major, R/o Savkheda,
Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.
2 The Education Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon.
3 The State of Maharashtra,
Through Deppt. Of Education.
...Respondents...
.....
Shri Sanket S. Kulkarni, Advocate h/f Shri S.D. Kulkarni,
Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Vinod P. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 served.
Shri A.P. Basarkar, AGP for respondent no.3.
.....
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:28:01 :::
WP 2322/97
- 2 -
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE: 10.03.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1] The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment
and order dated 11.3.1997 delivered by the School
Tribunal, Nashik, by which Jalgaon Appeal No.9/1993 filed
by respondent no.1 herein was allowed after condonation
of delay and the petitioner - management was directed to
reinstate him on the post of Peon with back wages from
the date of termination till he is reinstated.
2] Shri Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the
petitioner - management submits that by order dated
15.12.1997, ad-interim protection was granted by this
Court to the petitioners against the impugned judgment.
After hearing the learned Advocates for the respective
sides, this petition was admitted and interim relief in
terms of prayer clause [C] was granted by order dated
23.11.1998.
3] Prayer clause [C] of the petition reads as
under:-
"[C] Pending the hearing and final disposal of
this writ petition, the execution and operation
WP 2322/97
- 3 -
of the judgment and order dated 11`.3.1997 passed
by the learned Presiding Officer, School
Tribunal, Nasik Region, Nasik, in Jalgaon Appeal
No.9/93 be stayed."
4] Shri Kulkarni further submits that respondent
no.1 had withdrawn Rs.1,81,663/-, which were deposited by
the petitioners with the Education Officer towards his
back wages. As this Court was of the prima-facie opinion
that the amount has been surreptitiously withdrawn by the
employee, he was directed to furnish a security for the
said amount to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this
Court or to deposit the said amount within four weeks.
5] Shri Kulkarni further submits that
simultaneously the contempt petition was heard by this
Court with reference to the withdrawal of the amount by
respondent no.1. By order dated 23.11.1998, this Court
concluded that there was no contempt and the Contempt
Petition No.184/1998 was rejected.
6] Shri Kulkarni submits that peculiar facts have
led to the filing of this petition. Respondent no.1
Shriram Kisan More was first appointed as a Peon on
20.7.1980. His second appointment is dated 15.6.1981 and
WP 2322/97
- 4 -
his third appointment is dated 12.6.1982. He was
accorded temporary approval by the Education Officer,
Zilla Parishad, for the years 1981 and 1982. There were
two factions in the trust. The Secretary of the trust
issued order of termination dated 24.3.1983 and
respondent no.1 was terminated.
7] He further submits that since respondent no.1
accepted his termination and walked away, the petitioners
appointed Mr.Madhav Budha Bhoi in place of respondent
no.1 (Mr.More) as a Peon. In the meanwhile, respondent
no.1 Mr.More secured employment as a Peon in
Grampanchayat, Zurkheda. He was appointed on 18.10.1984
and continued to work till 31.3.1986.
8] The management thereafter then terminated
Mr.Bhoi and appointed Mr.Devidas Namdeo Ahire in his
place as a Peon. Shri Kulkarni submits that since there
were two groups in the trust, one group headed by Shri
Bhaskar Ramdas Patil indulged in appointing people and
the other group led by Shri Pandit Vedu Patil started
terminating the employees.
9] He, however, submits that even if the said
controversy is kept aside for a moment, the fact remains
WP 2322/97
- 5 -
that Mr.Bhoi challenged his termination in Appeal
No.22/1987 before the School Tribunal at Bombay. By
judgment dated 4.1.1989, his appeal was allowed and his
termination order dated 16.6.1987 was quashed and set
aside. The petitioner - management was directed to
reinstate him to his original post of Peon with all
monetary benefits from 16.6.1983.
10] After Mr.Bhoi succeeded, respondent no.1 Mr.More
woke up and preferred Jalgaon Appeal No.9/1993. The same
suffered delay, which was condoned and by the impugned
judgment dated 11.3.1997, the appeal was allowed and the
petitioners were directed to reinstate respondent no.1
Mr.More on the post of Peon with effect from 23.1.1989
till he is reinstated.
11] Shri Kulkarni, therefore, submits that there was
one solitary post of Peon and there were two judgments of
the School Tribunal, Bombay and Nashik granting
reinstatement to Mr.Bhoi and Mr.More. The management
reinstated Mr.Bhoi since his judgment was delivered on
4.1.1989 and challenged the judgment in favour of
respondent no.1 in this petition.
12] Shri Patil, learned Advocate appearing on behalf
WP 2322/97
- 6 -
of respondent no.1 Mr.More submits that he has already
attained the age of superannuation in 2015. He was not
reinstated since this Court had stayed the judgment of
the School Tribunal. Consequentially, he has not worked
in this entire past period of 24 years.
13] I have considered the submissions of the learned
Advocates as well as the subsequent events.
14] It is a peculiar situation wherein one post of
Peon was available and two are to be reinstated. After
the termination of Mr.More, Mr.Bhoi was appointed. After
he was terminated, he succeeded in his appeal and by
virtue of the judgment dated 4.1.1989, he was reinstated.
Record reveals that after the termination of Mr.Bhoi,
Mr.More was once again temporarily appointed in the year
1988 and was finally again terminated on 23.1.1989 since
the judgment in favour of Mr.Bhoi was delivered on
4.1.1989.
15] When Mr.More approached the School Tribunal by
his appeal in 1993, the petitioners brought the fact of
Mr.Bhoi's reinstatement on record. In my view, the
Tribunal should have considered the said fact and in
order to avoid conflicting judgments, should have
WP 2322/97
- 7 -
considered the belated claim of Mr.More in the backdrop
of the judgment in favour of Mr.Bhoi.
16] It is not in dispute that respondent no.1
Mr.More is out of employment from 23.1.1989. He has
attained the age of superannuation at 58 years in 2015.
It, therefore, appears that he has initially worked for
three years and thereafter has worked for about two years
in 1987 and 1988.
17] In these peculiar facts as above, I find that
the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
following four cases would become applicable to this case
:-
[1] Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State
Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota
v. Mohanlal (2013 LLR 1009)
[2] Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development
Corporation & another v. Gitam Singh [(2013) 5
SCC 136]
[3] BSNL v. Man Singh [(2012) 1 SCC 558] and
[4] Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture
Marketing Board [(2009) 15 SCC 327]
18] In the above mentioned four cases, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court concluded that where an employee has worked
for a short spell and has been out of employment for a
WP 2322/97
- 8 -
long spell, reinstating such an employee would sound
unreasonable and quantifying compensation would be more
practicable. The Apex Court concluded that Rs.30,000/-
for one year of service could be an appropriate
compensation.
19] With regard to compensation, Shri Patil submits
that the amount withdrawn from the Education Officer was
towards unpaid wages. Shri Kulkarni disputes the said
contention and submits that in both the proceedings i.e.
before the Tribunal and this Court, no contention has
been put forth by the employee that the amount withdrawn
by him was towards unpaid wages. Respondent no.1 has
initially worked for three years from 1980 to 1983 and
then from 1987 to 1988. Considering the withdrawal of
Rs.1,81,663/- and the fact that I am inclined to grant
compensation, taking into account the length of service
and litigation and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the petitioners shall, therefore, pay an
amount of Rs.75,000/- as further compensation in lieu of
reinstatement with continuity and back wages as granted
by the School Tribunal.
20] This petition is, therefore, partly allowed.
WP 2322/97
- 9 -
The impugned judgment of the School Tribunal dated
11.3.1997 is modified with the direction to the
petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- to respondent
no.1 within a period of twelve weeks from today, failing
which the same shall carry simple interest at the rate of
3% p.a. from the date of judgment of the School Tribunal,
which is 11.3.1997. Needless to state, respondent no.1
shall now be precluded from raising any dispute with
regard to his employment and non-employment with the
petitioners in the light of the quantified compensation
granted as above.
21] Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
Pending civil applications do not survive and are
disposed of.
(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
ndk/c103169.doc
