Bombay High Court
Madhukar Bhaskar Pawar vs State Of Maha & Ors on 30 November, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/2510/2004
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2510 OF 2004
Madhukar Bhaskar Pawar,
Age 34 years, Occ. Service
R/o Pahur (Kasbe), Tq. Jamner,
District Jalgaon. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Dy. Director of Education,
Nasik Division, Nasik.
3. The Education Officer (S),
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon.
4. The Chairman,
Pahur Group Education Society,
Pahur, Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon.
5. The Secretary
Pahur Group Education Society,
Pahur, Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon.
6. The Head Master,
R.T.Lele High School,
Pahur, Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri V. B. Garud
AGP for Respondents 1 to 3 : Smt. V. S. Choudhary
Advocate for Respondents 4 to 6 : Shri K. M. Nagarkar
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
Dated: November 30, 2017
...
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.):-
1. The petitioner, by this petition, has putforth prayer clause
WP/2510/2004
21(A), which reads as under:-
"(A) For a Writ of Certiorari, order, direction in the nature
of certiorari, calling for the record and proceeding of the
order dated 15.7.2003, bearing No. Education / Secondary/
7/ W.P.772/02, passed by the respondent No.3 and after
examining the legality, validity and propriety therefor, the
order dated 15.7.2003, bearing No. Education / Secondary/
7/ W.P.772/02, passed by respondent No.3 may kindly be
modified and the petitioner be granted B.Ed., scale of
Rs.1400-2600 and all the benefits attached to the B.Ed. post
from the date of his initial appointment w.e.f. 16.7.1993."
2. Contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed in 1993
as an Assistant Teacher and was wrongly given the D.Ed. scale. He
was wrongly continuing in the said scale and subsequently was
given the B.Ed. scale in 2002. From 1993 to 2002, he was wrongly
continued on the D.Ed. scale and he is entitled to the difference in
salary of the B.Ed. scale for that entire period.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued on some illegal
gratification given to the management in the nature of the
construction of some class room. He has also canvassed his
WP/2510/2004
submissions on the aspect of his unlawful termination and his
subsequent reinstatement by the Tribunal.
4. Learned AGP points out that when the petitioner was
appointed there was no sanctioned B.Ed. scale. It was by
Government Resolution dated 25.6.1992 that the D.Ed. scale was
granted to the concerned school. Subsequently, thereto, the
petitioner has been granted the B.Ed. scale from 16.8.2002 by the
orders of the Education Officer, dated 15.7.2003.
5. In the light of the submissions of the learned Advocate for the
petitioner, the learned AGP on behalf of Education Department and
Shri Nagarkar, learned Advocate on behalf of the management, we
have gone through the petition paper book and the record available.
6. The appointment order of the petitioner dated 16.7.1993,
clearly indicates that he was appointed on a D.Ed. Scale for a
temporary period of one year from 1993-94. By a communication
dated 10.6.1994, the service of the petitioner was continued. By
one more communication dated 9.6.1995, his service was again
continued for one year on the same terms and conditions.
7. By the order of the Education Officer dated 9.9.1996,
WP/2510/2004
approval was granted to the appointment of the petitioner on the
D.Ed. scale. Based on the said approval, it is submitted that the
petitioner is deemed permanent.
8. Since the secondary school, in which the petitioner is
imparting education is a grant in aid school, it needs to be
scrutinized as to when was the B.Ed. scale granted by the
Government. In the absence of the salary grants admissible to a
Teacher as per the B.Ed. scale, a Teacher who has accepted his
appointment on the D.Ed. scale with eyes wide open, a grievance
after 24 years cannot be entertained. There is no dispute that the
petitioner was working on the D.Ed. scale until he was granted the
B.Ed. scale, the moment it was made available by the State w.e.f.
16.8.2002.
9. The issue, therefore, would be as regards the salary to be paid
to the petitioner as per the B.Ed. scale from the salary grants. An
affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the Education
Department on 22.12.2005, stating therein, that since the petitioner
was appointed in the D.Ed. scale, he cannot be considered to be
appointed in category "C" of Schedule "F" under the Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.
Unless he is brought into category "C", he would not be entitled for
WP/2510/2004
the B.Ed. scale.
10. The record reveals that the Education Department had issued
a Circular on 25.6.1992, declaring that those trained teachers, who
were appointed on the posts for un-trained teachers, will have to
work on the scale available for un-trained teachers and will not be
entitled to claim the pay scale of trained graduate teachers. It was
further provided that such trained graduate teachers, who were
working on un-trained teachers' posts, will not have a right to be
included in the category 'C' of Scheduled 'F' of the Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.
11. In the light of the above, we do not find that the grievance of
the petitioner that he should be paid the B.Ed. scale from the date of
his appointment in 1993, which was a temporary appointment,
could be entertained.
12. This petition being devoid of merits is, therefore, dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
13. At this juncture, the learned Advocate for the petitioner
submits that the management has not paid his monthly salary for the
academic years 1993-94 and 1994-95. Considering the said request,
WP/2510/2004
we deem it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to make a
representation to the Education Officer (Secondary) / Respondent
No.3 within three weeks from today, putting forth his claim for the
salary for the period for which it is unpaid. After receiving such
representation, respondent No.3 shall verify from the records as to
whether any unpaid salary is outstanding and accordingly shall pass
an order directing the management to make the said payment within
a period of six weeks. The management would be obliged to
implement the said order.
( SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
