Bombay High Court
Surekha Bhila Thakare vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 16 November, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
(1) WP No.1506/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1506 OF 2012
Surekha Bhila Thakare
Age : major, occu.: service
R/o 7/A, Anmol Nagar,
Deopur, Dhule,
District Dhule Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nashik Division, Nashik.
3. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Dhule.
4. The President,
Public Education Society,
Deopur, District Dhule.
A Public Trust having its office at
Professor Colony, Deopur, Dhule,
Taluka and District Dhule.
5. The President,
Rashtramata Jijau Sevabhavi Sanstha,
Rami, Taluka Sindkheda,
District Dhule.
6. The Head Master,
Prathmik Vidya Mandir, Gondur Road,
Walwadi, Dhule. Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 13:16:26 :::
(2) WP No.1506/2012
***
Shri Yogesh Bolkar, Advocate for petitioners.
Smt. V.S. Chaudhary, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
***
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
AND
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
Dated : 16-11-2017.
JUDGMENT (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) :-
1. By this Petition, the petitioner has put-forth prayer Clauses
'C' and 'D' below paragraph No.37, which read as under :-
C. By way of writ of Mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature, this
Hon'ble High Court may please be directed to the
respondent authorities to pay the salary / subsistence
allowance in accordance with law to the present petitioner
for the period October 2005 to May 2006.
D. By way of writ of Mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature, the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 may please be directed to decide
the issue of payment of salary / subsistence allowance in
accordance with law of the present petitioner for the period
October 2005 to May 2006.
2. After this Court had issued notices to the respondents on
04.01.2013, all the respondents have been served. The learned A.G.P.
has caused an appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri
Desale, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.-5-Rashtramata
Jijau Sevabhavi Sanstha, is absent. Though respondent No.3-Education
Officer (Primary) and respondent Nos.4 and 6, which are the Educational
Trust and Headmaster of the School have been served, they have not
caused an appearance either through an Advocate or in-person.
(3) WP No.1506/2012
3. The contention of the petitioner is that though the
Management - respondent No.4 has placed the petitioner under
suspension from 29.09.2005, the Education Officer, by an order dated
17.02.2006, has refused sanction to the request made by the Management
to suspend the petitioner.
4. We find that under Maharashtra Employees of Private
Schools (Condition of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 read with
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981, a specific
scheme is devised for conducting disciplinary proceedings against the
employees who are facing charges levelled by the Management. Rule 33
deals with the procedure for inflicting major penalties and in doing so, the
employer is legally bound to conduct an inquiry. If an employee is sought
to be suspended, the Management has to seek permission for suspending
an employee and which permission is to be granted by the Education
Officer.
5. Rule 35 (3) of the M.E.P.S. Rules provides for payment of
subsistence allowance if an employee is suspended with the prior approval
of the Education Officer. If an employee is suspended without prior
approval, Rule 34 (4) provides for the payment of subsistence allowance
by the Management, during the first four months of suspension and for
further period till completion of the inquiry as per the rules applicable.
(4) WP No.1506/2012
Beyond four months, the Rule prescribes the payment of 75% of the salary
as suspension allowance.
6. The learned Division Bench of this Court, in the matter of
Geeta Shridhar Gadre Shramadham Vs. Brahman Shikshan Mandal
and others [2007 (114) FLR 278], has concluded that any suspension
beyond four months, would render the suspension illegal.
7. In the instant case, the Education Officer has specifically
refused sanction to the Management to suspend the petitioner. We find
from the Petition Paper Book that the learned Single Judge of this Court,
by an order dated 26.09.2011 in Contempt Petition No. 11 of 2011 filed by
the present petitioner, had directed payment of suspension allowance after
termination of the petitioner, keeping in view that the petitioner had
approached the Tribunal and a denovo inquiry was directed.
8. Considering the contentions before us in this Petition and the
prayer put-forth by the petitioner, we find that the prayers of the petitioner
can be granted in the light of Rule 33 (1) and Rule 35 (3) and (4) of the
M.E.P.S. Rules.
9. As such, this Petition is allowed. We direct respondent No.3-
Education Officer to calculate the subsistence allowance which the
(5) WP No.1506/2012
Management has to pay from its accounts, keeping in view Rule 35 (3)
and (4) of the M.E.P.S. Rules. After calculating the said amounts within a
period of four weeks from today, the Education Officer shall direct
respondent No.4-Management to pay the said subsistence allowance
within a period of four weeks after passing of the order. If the
Management does not comply with his order, the Education Officer can
initiate coercive steps to ensure compliance.
( SUNIL K. KOTWAL) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE)
JUDGE JUDGE
vdd/
