Bombay High Court
The Secretary, Siddarth Samaj ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 14 September, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1409wp2460.13-Judgment 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2460 OF 2013
PETITIONERS :- 1) The Secretary, Siddharth Samaj Kalyan
Mandal, Hanuman Nagar, Umari Akola, Tq.
& District Akola.
2) The Head Master, Siddharth Vidyalaya Umri,
Akola, Tq. And District Akola.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its
ig Secretary for School Education and Sports
Department Ministry, Extension Building,
Mumbai-32.
2) The Dy.Director of Education, Amravati
Division, Amravati, Tq.and District
Amravati.
3) The Education Officer, (Secondary), Zilla
Parishad, Akola, Tq.& Distt. Akola.
4) Ku.Sunanda Damodhar Nikushe, Aged about
48 yrs., Occ: Asstt.Teacher, Siddharth
Vidyalaya Umri, Akola, Tq.and District
Akola.
5) Ku.Varsha Manohar Bobade, Aged about 45
yrs., Occ: Phy.Teacher, Siddharth Vidyalaya
Umri, Akola, Tq.and District Akola.
6) Shri Uttam Zyabuji Palaspagar, Aged about
50 yrs., Occ: Asstt.Teacher, Siddharth
Vidyalaya Umri, Akola, Tq.and District
Akola.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.A.S.Kilor, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.A.S.Fulzele, Addl. Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Anjan De, counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : 14.09.2016
1409wp2460.13-Judgment 2/6
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard
finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioners impugn the order of the
Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati directing the
petitioners to pay the unpaid salary to the respondent Nos.4 to 6 for the period
from 27/10/2008 to 12/12/2011.
3. Inter alia, it is stated on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned
order is liable to be set aside, as before deciding the complaint filed by the
respondent Nos.4 to 6 in respect of the non-payment of salary for the aforesaid
period, the Deputy Director of Education had neither served a copy of the
complaint, nor the copies of the documents tendered by the respondent Nos.4
to 6 before the Deputy Director of Education. It is submitted that the
impugned order is passed without granting a fair opportunity to the petitioners
to defend the claim of the respondent Nos.4 to 6 for the payment of unpaid
salary. It is stated that the school is a grant-in-aid school and hence, even if
the salary is payable, it was liable to be paid by the Education Authorities. It is
also stated that the impugned order is cryptic and it does not record any
reasons for allowing the claim of the respondent Nos.4 to 6. It is stated that in
the earlier part of the order, only the facts are recorded and the operative
order is passed without recording any reasons.
1409wp2460.13-Judgment 3/6
4. Shri A.S.Fulzele, the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondents-Authorities, fairly states that a copy of
the complaint as also the copies of the voluminous documents tendered by the
respondent Nos.4 to 6 before the Deputy Director of Education, were not
supplied to the petitioners, though the notice was duly served on them. It is
stated that the petitioner No.1 was personally present at the time of hearing
and he was duly heard. It is stated that on the basis of the documents, the
impugned order is passed.
5.
Shri Anjan De, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to
6, raises an objection to the tenability of the writ petition. It is stated that the
petitioner No.1 is not the Secretary of the Trust and the petitioner No.2 is not
the Headmaster. It is stated that the writ petition filed by the petitioner Nos.1
and 2 may not be entertained.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal
of the documents annexed to the writ petition and the affidavit-in-reply, it
appears that a fair opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioners
before the Deputy Director of Education decided the complaint of the
respondent Nos.4 to 6. We are not inclined to entertain the objection raised
on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 to 6 that the petitioner No.1 is not the
Secretary of the Trust in this writ petition, as the petitioner No.1 was duly
served with a notice of the proceedings in the complaint filed by the
respondent Nos.4 to 6, as the Secretary of the Trust and the petitioner No.1
was personally present in the proceedings and had participated in the same.
1409wp2460.13-Judgment 4/6
Since the petitioner No.1 was personally present and has participated in the
proceedings, the petitioner No.1 would be entitled to challenge the order in
the proceedings arising out of the complaint filed by the respondent
Nos.4 to 6.
7. We find that it was necessary for the Deputy Director of
Education to have served the copies of the complaint as also the numerous
documents tendered by the respondent Nos.4 to 6 before the Deputy Director
of Education to the petitioners before deciding the complaint. Non-supply of
copies of the complaint and the documents, which are nearly 200 in number,
would vitiate the impugned order. It was expected of the Deputy Director of
Education to at least supply the copies of the complaint and the documents
relied on by the respondent Nos.4 to 6 to the petitioner No.1 before deciding
the complaint. Also, we find that the impugned order is cryptic and does not
record any reasons for allowing the complaint filed by the respondent Nos.4 to
6. Since a hearing was granted by the Deputy Director of Education to the
parties, the Deputy Director of Education was expected to record at least some
reasons for directing the Management to pay the salary to the respondent
Nos.4 to 6. It was necessary for the Deputy Director of Education to also
consider whether the Government Authorities would be liable to pay the salary
to the respondent Nos.4 to 6, even if their claim was rightful.
8. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Deputy Director
of Education may reconsider the complaint filed by the respondent Nos.4 to 6,
1409wp2460.13-Judgment 5/6
in accordance with law, after supplying the copies of the complaint and the
documents to the concerned parties including the petitioners. The respondent-
Deputy Director of Education is directed to decide the complaint within a
period of four months. The petitioners and the respondent Nos.4 to 6
undertake to appear before the Deputy Director of Education on 26/09/2016
so that issuance of notice to them could be dispensed with. It is needless to
mention that we have not adjudicated on the issue in regard to the status of
the petitioners and the said issue, is kept open. Rule is made absolute in the
aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
1409wp2460.13-Judgment 6/6
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by : G.S.Khunte, Uploaded on : 16/09/2016
P.A.to Hon'ble Judge
