Bombay High Court
Kewalram Raghuji Humane vs State & Others on 8 December, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 WP.3311.00
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3311 OF 2000.
Kewalram Raghuji Humane,
aged 58 years, Occ. Service as
Headmaster, Anand Vidyalaya
Tatha Anand Junior College,
Bembal, Tahsil : Mul,
District Chandrapur. ..... PETITIONER.
....Versus....
1] State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Education & Employment,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
2] Senior Auditor (Secondary),
Education Department, Zilla
Parishad, Chandrapur, Tahsil
& District Chandrapur,
3] Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Region, Nagpur,
4] Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur,
Tahsil & District Chandrapur.
5] Dr. Ambedkar Study Circle,
Chandrapur, through its Secretary,
District Chandrapur, resident of
Vihirgaon, Behind Old Railway
Station, Mul, Taluka Mul,
District Chandrapur,
6] Bhalchandra s/o Rajeshwar
Ramteke, Ambedkar Ward,
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 00:21:46 :::
2 WP.3311.00
Near Nagar Parishad,
Bhadravati, Taluka Bhadravati,
District Chandrapur. ...... RESPONDENTS.
Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for the petitioner,
Mr. V.P. Maldhure, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent
nos. 1 to 4.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 8, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
, J.)
1] Heard respective Counsel for petitioner and respondent
nos. 1 to 4. Nobody appears for respondent nos. 5 & 6.
2] Challenge is to recovery sought to be made from petitioner
on the ground that he could not have been paid salary as
Headmaster when respondent no.6 Shri Ramteke was on that post.
Objection taken in audit report on 31.3.1995 has been accepted and
amount of Rs.55,903/- is ordered to be recovered from the petitioner.
3] This Court has in present matter stayed that recovery on
15.7.2002 subject to petitioner giving surety to Education Officer.
Accordingly, the petitioner has complied with said order. However, at
3 WP.3311.00
this stage, it is not in dispute that amount of Rs.55,903/- is recovered
from respondent no.5 by the other respondents.
4] The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is
situation that two persons came on same post is creation of
respondent no.5 and petitioner cannot be made to suffer for that. Our
attention has been invited to relevant events in this respect by the
learned Counsel.
5] Learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 4 submits that as
petitioner did not work as Headmaster when respondent no.6 was on
that post, salary as Headmaster cannot be made over to petitioner.
6] Salary as Headmaster has been paid to petitioner already
and it is question of recovery. Facts show that Shri Ramteke earlier
Headmaster was terminated on 14.5.1974 and he succeeded before
authorities in getting order of reinstatement. This order of
reinstatement was questioned by management in Special Civil
Application No. 2339/76. In that Special Civil Application, stay was
given to reinstatement of Shri Ramteke on 10.3.1976. The S.C.A.
was ultimately allowed on 26.11.1981 and reinstatement order issued
in favour of Shri Ramteke by the Appellate Authority/Revisional
4 WP.3311.00
Authority was set aside.
7] However, Shri Ramteke continued to function as
Headmaster from 17.7.1977 till 31.12.1981 when he superannuated.
The petitioner was then made a regular Headmaster with effect from
15.3.1982 and his services have been accordingly approved.
However, it appears that after initial termination of Shri Ramteke,
petitioner was appointed as Headmaster with effect from 1.7.1974.
The Education Officer has on 19.11.1976 taken note of stay given to
reinstatement of Shri Ramteke by this Court in Special Civil
Application No. 2339/76 and then asked management to continue
petitioner as Incharge Headmaster, so as to avoid any complication
arising out of need to pay salary to both persons as Headmaster.
Even Accounts officer has on 18.10.1999 in a letter sent to
respondent no.5 pointed out that between 1.7.1974 to 15.7.1977
petitioner worked as officiating/incharge Headmaster.
8] All these facts, therefore, need to be looked into when
question of recovery is to be answered. The petitioner cannot be
blamed at all for resulting situation. Termination order of Shri
Ramteke dated 14.5.1974 is not in dispute and though Shri Ramteke
succeeded in Appeal or Revision in procuring order of reinstatement,
5 WP.3311.00
that order was stayed by High Court on 10.3.1976 and ultimately set
aside on 26.11.1981 when Special Civil Application No. 2339/76 was
allowed with the effect act of management in terminating services of
Shri Ramteke on 14.5.1974 was upheld.
9] Consequently, it follows that appointment of petitioner as
Headmaster from 1.7.1974 also cannot be objected to. Though
authorities in Education Department have advised management to
designate petitioner as officiating or in-charge Headmaster, that does
not mean that petitioner was not a Headmaster. On the contrary, the
Accounts Officer has in letter dated 18.10.1999 noted that during
period from 1.7.1974 to 15.7.1977 petitioner worked as in-charge
Headmaster. If petitioner worked as Headmaster, mere addition of
word "In-charge" or "officiating" would not make any difference. He
has been ultimately made a regular Headmaster on 15.3.1982.
10] Thus, petitioner working as Headmaster has received
salary for the period in dispute and it cannot be treated as excess
payment to him. It is respondent no.5 who permitted Shri Ramteke to
function though there was restraining order granted on 10.3.1976 by
this Court in petition filed by management only. We, therefore, find
that no recovery can be effected from present petitioner.
6 WP.3311.00
11] Accordingly, we quash and set aside that recovery. The
surety given by petitioner is discharged. Writ Petition stands
disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
No costs.
JUDGE. JUDGE.
J.
