Subhash Nagnathrao Suryawanshi vs State Of Mah & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 6263 Bom

                                        1                               wp 5219.05




                                                                          
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                  
                         WRIT PETITION NO. 5219 OF 2005

              Subhodh S/o Nagnathrao Suryawanshi,




                                                 
              Age : 52 Years, Occu. : Service,
              R/o Nehru Junior College,
              Savkheda, Tq. Gangapur,
              Dist. Aurangabad.                   ..    Petitioner 




                                       
                       Versus
     1.       The State of Maharashtra,
                            
              (Through its Secretary,
              School Education Department,
              Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32).
      

     2.       The Director of Education,
              MS Pune.
   



     3.       The Deputy Director of Education,
              Aurangabad.





     4.       Marathwada Banjara Seva Santh
              (Through Its President :
              Shri Ramsingh Shankarsingh Chavan
              Aged 55 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
              R/o Naik Nagar, Aurangabad)                  ..    Respondents





     Shri U. R. Awate, Advocate h/f Shri S. B. Talekar, Advocate for 
     the Petitioner.
     Shri M. B. Bharaswadkar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
     The Respondent No. 4 is served.

                               CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
                                       K. L. WADANE, JJ.

                                            2                                   wp 5219.05




                                                                                 
                                   DATE : 21ST OCTOBER, 2016.




                                                         

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-

. Mr. Awate, the learned counsel for the petitioner states

that, the petitioner was working with the respondent No. 4/college. The recognition of the said college was withdrawn on 29.06.1996. The petitioner was paid salary till 29.06.1996. The

petitioner preferred many representations for absorbing him in

other institution. The petitioner filed writ petition. This Court directed the respondents to include the name of the present

petitioner in the wait list of the teachers of the de-recognized junior college and to absorb in the recognized junior college as and when vacancy is available for the teachers. The petitioner

was allowed to join only in November 2003, pursuant to the order

of absorption dated 18.10.2003. According to the learned counsel, the other lecturers who were juniors to the petitioner were

absorbed prior in point of time. The respondents did not follow the seniority. The respondents be directed to pay salary to the petitioner from 1996 till absorption and to grant all other consequential benefits.

2. The learned Assistant Government pleader states that, the college was de-recognized, as such the petitioner's services stood terminated on de-recognition of the college. After holding enquiry, it was found that, the petitioner was not responsible for

3 wp 5219.05

the de-recognition of the college. Thereafter has been absorbed vide order passed in October 2013. No error has been committed

by respondents.

3. We have considered the submissions canvassed by learned counsel for respective parties.

4. The junior college where the petitioner was working stood

de-recognized. As such, the petitioner's services stood terminated due to retrenchment. In the present case, Rule 25 of

the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Rules would apply. No doubt, the respondents are required to consider the cause for de-recognition and if the

employee is not responsible for de-recognition of the said college,

then the employee can be absorbed in other recognized college. Upon enquiry, it was found that, employees were not responsible

for de-recognition of the college and as such steps were taken to absorb the petitioner. In view of the relevant rules the petitioner is not entitled for the salary for the period, the petitioner is

terminated on account of retrenchment till his absorption, as the same is under Rule 25-A of the M. E. P. S. Rules. The fact would have been different, if the petitioner would have been retrenched under Rule 26 of the M. E. P. S. Rules.

5. In view of that, request of the petitioner for payment of

4 wp 5219.05

salary for the said period cannot be accepted. However, the services from the date of derecognition of the junior college,

where the petitioner was working till his absorption shall be considered for the purpose of continuity in service and other

benefits. The petitioner may accordingly apply for pay fixation. The authorities shall consider the same in the light of the judgment passed in the present petition.

Rule accordingly made absolute in above terms.

                 Sd/-                                          Sd/-
      [ K. L. WADANE, J. ]                     [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
      


     bsb/Oct. 16