Bombay High Court
Rupnawar Dhanaji Dinkar vs Jai Bhavani Education Society And ... on 2 November, 2017
Bench: Vasanti A. Naik
RNG 1/5 232-8323.03
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8323 OF 2003
Rupnawar Dhanaji Dinkar }
B.A.B.P.Ed.Asst.Teacher, R/o
at present Mouje Munjawadi, }
Taluka Phaltan District Satara } .. Petitioner
versus
1. Jai Bhavani Education Society }
Taluka Phaltan District Satara
and running school by name
Shriram Kholeshwar Vidhyalaya, }
Munjawadi, Taluka Phaltan
District Satara
2. Head Master, }
Shriram Kholeshwar High School,
Munjawadi, Taluka Phaltan
District Satara }
3. Educational Officer (Secondary)
Satara Zilla Parishad,Education }
Department (Secondary)
District Satara.
4. Deputy Education Officer (Second) }
Satara Zilla Parishad, Education
Deptt (Second) Satara }
5. Director of Education }
Education Deptt (Second)
Kolhapur. }
::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2017 01:16:55 :::
RNG 2/5 232-8323.03
6. The State of Maharashtra }
(Notice to be served upon
Addl.Government Pleader,
High Court, Bombay) } .. Respondents
....
None for the Petitioner
Mr.Vijay Patil for Respondent nos.1 and 2.
Mr.A.P.Vanarase Asst. Govt.Pleader for Respondent
nos.3 to 6.
Coram : SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK AND
RIYAZ I CHAGLA, JJ
Date : 2nd NOVEMBER 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction
against the respondent nos.1 and 2 to pay the salary to the petitioner
from June, 1992 onwards.
According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a
teacher in the school run by the respondent no.1-society on
13.6.1992. It is stated that the petitioner was not paid salary since
his appointment. The school was entitled to receive 25 % grant-in-
aid in the year 1997. It is the case of the petitioner that even after
the school was brought on 100 % grant-in-aid in the year 2000, the
petitioner was not paid the salary. It is stated that all the teachers of
the school except the petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing
No.1899 of 1999 and this Court had directed the respondent nos.1
and 2 to release the salary of the said teachers. It is stated that since
RNG 3/5 232-8323.03
the petitioner was not paid salary from the date of his appointment
till the petition was filed, the petitioner has made a prayer for a
direction against the respondent nos.1 and 2 to pay the arrears of
salary to the petitioner.
2. The respondent no.1-State of Maharashtra has denied
the liability to pay the salary. It is stated that the school was brought
on 100 % grant-in-aid only in the year 2000 and a proposal for
appointment of the petitioner and payment of salary to him was
never submitted to the education authorities.
3. The respondent nos.1 and 2 have filed the affidavit-in-
reply. It is stated in the affidavit-in-reply that the petitioner was
working purely on temporary basis from June, 1992 and though the
appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner on
30.5.1992 appointing him on purely temporary basis, he ceased to
work with the respondent nos. 1 and 2 since May/September,1998.
It is stated that the writ petition for seeking the monetary benefit is
filed in the year 2003. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.1
and 2 states that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be
granted in the circumstances of the case especially when the
petitioner has ceased to work in the school since September, 1998.
It is stated that the claim for arrears of salary could be restricted only
for the period of three years before filing of the petition and since the
RNG 4/5 232-8323.03
writ petition is filed on 18.11.2003, the petitioner could have made a
claim for salary only for the period from 18.11.2000. It is stated
that since the petitioner has ceased to work from September 1998,
the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. On a perusal of the writ petition and hearing the learned
counsel for the respondents, it appears that the relief sought by the
petitioner cannot be granted in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In
para 7 of the petition, it is clearly averred that the petitioner would
also be entitled to the arrears of salary from the date of his
appointment till the year 1999, as was granted to the other teachers
in view of the directions given in the writ petition filed by them. The
respondent nos.1 and 2 have clearly stated in the affidavit-in-reply
that the petitioner ceased to work in the school run by the
respondent no.1 society from September, 1998. The said statement is
not controverted by the petitioner by filing a rejoinder. In any case,
the question whether the petitioner worked till September 1998 or
continued to work thereafter, cannot be decided in exercise of the
writ jurisdiction. Since the monetary claim could be made only for
the period of three years preceeding the date of the filing of the writ
petition and since the writ petition is filed on 18.11.2003 and there
is no material on record to show that the petitioner worked with the
respondent no1 and 2 after 18.11.2000, the claim of the petitioner
for grant of arrears of salary cannot be granted.
RNG 5/5 232-8323.03
5. In the circumstances of the case, the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed. Hence, we dismiss the same with no order as
to costs. Rule stands discharged.
(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J) (SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK, J)
