Bombay High Court
Chatrabhuj Eknath Bachpai vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 16 June, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
1 WP 4697 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Writ Petition No.4697 of 2008
* Chatrabhuj S/o Eknath Bachpai,
Age 60 years,
Occupation: Pensioner,
R/o 578, "Matru-Sadan',
M.G. Road Dharangaon,
Taluka Dharangaon,
District Jalgaon. .. Petitioner.
Versus
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2) The Deputy Director of Education,
Nashik Division, Nashik.
3) The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon.
4) P.R. High School, Dharangaon,
Taluka Dharangaon,
District Jalgaon,
Through its Head Master. .. Respondents.
----
Shri. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate, for petitioner.
Shri. A.S. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for
respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Shri. G.V. Wani, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
----
::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2017 00:27:15 :::
2 WP 4697 of 2008
Coram: T.V. NALAWADE &
SANGITRAO S PATIL, JJ.
Date: 16 June 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per T.V. Nalawade, J.)
1) The petition is filed to challenge the order of
respondent Nos.2 and 3 and also for giving directions to
them to see that the petitioner gets reimbursement in
respect of the bills of medicines and treatment. Both the
sides are heard.
2) The submissions made show that the petitioner
was working as the Headmaster in the school of
respondent No.4 and he retired due to superannuation on
31-1-2006. As per provision of rule 17(2) of the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Rules 1981 he was given re-employment for
second academic term as he retired in midst of the term.
It is his case that during his tenure after his
re-employment he was required to spend on medicines
and treatment of his wife and for himself and he had
submitted the bills for reimbursement but the authority
has rejected the claim by giving reason that during
3 WP 4697 of 2008
re-employment period such reimbursement cannot be
given. This order of the Education Officer dated 5-5-2008
is challenged and further prayer is made to give directions
to these respondents to see that the reimbursement is
given.
3) In the reply affidavit for the respondent No.3
the aforesaid reason is again given. In short, it is the case
of these respondents that during the period of
re-employment such benefit cannot be given. The learned
Assistant Government Pleader placed reliance on some
observations made by this Court at Nagpur Bench in the
case reported as 2014(4) Mh.L.J. 457 (Syed Ishaque Syed
Nabi v. State of Maharashtra). This Court has carefully
gone through the observations made by this Court at
Nagpur Bench. The facts were totally different and the
point involved was also different. The learned Assistant
Government Pleader drew attention of this Court to the
other part of Rule 17 showing that the service rendered
due to re-employment by such employee cannot be
counted for pension purpose etc. There cannot be dispute
that the pension will be fixed on the basis of last pay
4 WP 4697 of 2008
drawn by the employee when he retires due to
superannuation. Present benefit is of different nature and
there is nothing in the MEPS Rules 1981 showing that
such benefit to the employee cannot be given only
because he was working after re-employment.
4) The provision of giving reimbursement is
beneficial provision made in favour of employees and it
cannot be said that the employee cannot get
reimbursement during the period of such re-employment.
This Court holds that the order made by the Education
Officer needs to be set aside and further direction needs
to be given as claimed by the petitioner. However, the
record shows that the reimbursement is claimed in
respect of the period which is beyond 30 April 2006 also.
The re-employment was given for the remaining period of
second term of the academic year. As per definition of
School Terms given in Secondary Schools Code the second
term ends on 30 April. Ordinarily results are declared on 1
May and after that there is vacation period and then in the
month of June new term begins. In view of this, in view of
provision of re-employment it can be said that there is no
5 WP 4697 of 2008
need to continue the appointment in the month of May
and further under the aforesaid rules the re-employment
period comes to and when the second term of academic
year comes to an end. In view of these circumstances, this
Court holds that direction to give reimbursement of the
bills of medicines and treatment produced by him which
are in respect of the period ending 30 April 2006 can be
given. The bills which are of subsequent period are not to
be reimbursed.
5) The petition is partly allowed. Respondent
Nos.1 to 3 to pay the amount claimed as reimbursement in
respect of medical treatment of the petitioner and his wife
upto the period ending on 30-4-2006. The claim in respect
of the period which is beyond 30-4-2006 is not allowed.
Interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the amount which
needs to be paid by the respondents is allowed from 30-6-
2008 till deposit of the amount in the Court. The amount is
to be deposited within three months from today. Rule
made absolute in those terms.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANGITRAO S PATIL, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
rsl
