Bombay High Court
Matoshri Bahu Uddeshiya Vikas ... vs Ku. Anjusha D/O Gangadharrao ... on 6 June, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
WP 4393.08.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4393 OF 2008
1] Matoshri Bahu-uddeshiya Vikas
Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur, 33-B,
Cosmos Town, Near Trimurti Nagar,
Nagpur, through its Secretary
Shri Ranjit s/o Jayantrao Ghadge.
2] The Head Master,
Jijau Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Khapri,
(Railway), Tahsil & District-Nagpur... PETITIONERS
.. VERSUS ..
1] Ku. Anjusha d/o Gangadharrao Dane,
Aged about 36 years,
Occupation-Nil, R/o. C/o. Shree
Vijayrao Bodhankar, I/F. Mayur
Mangal Karyalaya, Ganesh Nagar,
Nandanwan, Nagpur.
2] Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur. .. RESPONDENTS
..........
None for the petitioners and respondent no.1,
Shri Bhagwan M. Lonare, AGP for respondent no.2.
..........
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATED : JUNE 06, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This petition takes an exception to the order dated
20.9.2007 passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur in Appeal
No.STN/05/2006 thereby quashing and setting aside oral
::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 05:08:43 :::
WP 4393.08.odt 2
termination of the respondent dated 13.2.2006 and directing
her reinstatement on original post with back wages.
2] The few facts relevant for the decision of the writ
petition may be stated in brief as under :
Respondent was appointed as Assistant Teacher in
Jijau Madhyamik Vidyalaya at Khapri (Rly), Nagpur on
23.6.2003. Approval to her post was granted by Education
Officer on 17.2.2005. Respondent submitted an application
for leave on medical ground on 10.2.2006. She was directed
by the petitioner to submit medical fitness certificate issued
by the duly authorized doctor. On 17.2.2006, she tendered
her resignation and the same was accepted by the
Managing Committee on 20.2.2006.
Respondent then filed an appeal before the School
Tribunal alleging therein that the resignation letter dated
17.2.2006 was not voluntarily tendered by her and her oral
otherwise termination dated 13.2.2006 was illegal and bad
in law.
3] Appeal was contested by the management. The
same was allowed by impugned order dated 20.9.2007 and
the oral otherwise termination of respondent was held as
::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 05:08:43 :::
WP 4393.08.odt 3
bad in law by the School Tribunal. It is this order which is
the subject matter of present writ petition.
4] This court vide order dated 13.1.2009 observed
thus :
"Heard Miss Marpakwar, Advocate
for petitioner, Mr. Tembhre, Advocate for
respondent no.1 and Mrs. Wasnik, A.G.P. for
respondent no.2.
It is the case of the petitioner that
respondent did not join as per the order of the
School Tribunal and instead filed criminal case
for not allowing her to join, in the court of
JMFC Hingna on 21.4.2000. Respondent no.1
also filed execution proceedings before the
School Tribunal on 26.6.2000. However, later
on she joined and she has been posted on the
same post as per order of the School Tribunal.
According to the petitioner she is not entitled
for back wages as she did not join the services
as per order of the Tribunal and has joined on
7.7.2008. It is submitted that challenge in this
petition is restricted to order of back wages.
In the circumstances, Rule.
Counsel for respondents waive
notice for respective respondents.
It is made clear that there would be
no stay to the order regarding payment of
wages. However, the same shall be subject to
the final orders in the petition."
5] In view of the above order, challenge in the
petition is restricted to the order of back wages. Before
considering the entitlement of the respondent to the back
wages, it would be appropriate to refer some undisputed
facts between the parties.
::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 05:08:43 :::
WP 4393.08.odt 4
6] It is not in dispute that respondent was appointed
as an Assistant Teacher on 23.6.2003 in the school of
petitioner no.2 run by petitioner no.1. It is also not in
dispute that the respondent was appointed by following the
proper procedure and she completed probation period
satisfactorily. There is no dispute that appointment of
respondent was approved by the Education Officer vide
letter dated 17.2.2005 with effect from 23.6.2003. It is
undisputed that appointment of respondent was as per the
provisions of Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of
Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977.
It is an admitted fact that respondent was Headmistress and
was also appointed as Secretary of the School Committee.
7] After the order passed by the School Tribunal, it
appears that on 27.9.2007 respondent went to join her
duties in the school at Khapri. She was not allowed by
petitioner no.2 to join her duties. The grievance of
respondent is that Head Master of the school even refused
to receive certified copy of order of School Tribunal. Having
no option, she sent the certified copy to school authority by
registered post acknowledgment due on 1.10.2007. The
::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 05:08:43 :::
WP 4393.08.odt 5
same was also refused by Head Master. She produced
documents including the postal endorsement on envelope
to substantiate her contention. It is a matter of record that
on 27.9.2007 respondent made a representation to
Education Officer and informed that she was not allowed to
join her duties. The copy of representation was also sent to
management by registered post letter on 20.9.2007. The
said letter was not received by management and it was sent
back to the sender.
8] In the above background and in view of the
undisputed facts stated supra, no fault can be found with
the order of the learned Presiding Officer of the School
Tribunal granting back wages to the respondent to be paid
by the management and the school authorities. No
interference is thus warranted in writ jurisdiction. Hence,
the following order :
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition No.4393 of 2008 stands dismissed.
(ii) No order to costs.
(Kum. Indira Jain, J.)
Gulande, PA
