Bombay High Court
Shri Nandkumar S/O Vishwasrao ... vs Rohit Bahu-Uddeshiya Sewa And ... on 17 January, 2018
Bench: Vasanti A. Naik
wp5884.16.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5884/2016
PETITIONER : Shri Nandkumar s/o Vishwasrao Shelke
Aged about 42 years, Occupation Service -
Assistant Teacher, R/o Plot No.23, Aai Trisharan
Nagar, Khamla, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Rohit Bahu-Uddeshiya Sewa & Vikas Sanstha,
through its President, office at Vrushali
Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Isapur,
Tahsil Saoner, District Nagpur.
2. The Secretary, Rohit Bahu-Uddeshiya Sewa
& Vikas Sanstha, Isapur, Tahsil Saoner,
District Nagpur.
(Correct address of R-1 & 2 supplied vide
Court's order dt. 24.3.17)
1. Rohit Bahu-Uddeshiya Sewa & Vikas Sanstha
Through its President (Shri Dhanraj Sarile)
R/o Ward No.3, New Koadi, Tah. Kamptee,
Dist. Nagpur.
2. The Secretary, [Shri Ganesh Sadashiv Kumeriya]
Rohit Bahu Uddeshiya Sewa & Vikas Sanstha,
Isapur, R/o Gadge Nagar, Near Jyoti School,
In front of Nimbalkar House, Nagpur - 9.
(Amendment carried out as per Court's order
dt. 24/3/17)
3. The Head-Master, Vrushali Madhyamik
Vidyalaya, Isapur, Tahsil Saoner, District
Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 01:37:03 :::
wp5884.16.odt
2
4. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
5. The State of Maharashtra through its
Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.D. Randive, Counsel for petitioner
Shri S.A. Radke, Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3
Shri S.S. Doifode, AGP for respondent nos.4 and 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7013/2016
PETITIONER : Shri Sanjay s/o Bapurao Naukarkar,
aged about 41 years, Occupation Service-
Assistant Teacher, C/o M G Bawankule,
Ward no.2, New Koradi, Tah. Kamptee,
Dist - Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Rohit Bahu-Uddeshiya Sewa & Vikas Sanstha,
through its President, office at Vrushali
Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Isapur,
Tahsil Saoner, District Nagpur.
2. The Secretary, Rohit Bahu-Uddeshiya Sewa
& Vikas Sanstha, Isapur, Tahsil Saoner,
District Nagpur.
3. The Head-Master, Vrushali Madhyamik
Vidyalaya, Isapur, Tahsil Saoner, District
Nagpur.
4. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 01:37:03 :::
wp5884.16.odt
3
5. The State of Maharashtra through its
Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.D. Randive, Counsel for petitioner
Shri S.A. Radke, Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3
Shri S.S. Doifode, AGP for respondent nos.4 and 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATE : 17/01/2018
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is identical
and similar prayers are made therein, they are heard together and are
decided by this common judgment.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are
heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned
Counsel for the parties.
The petitioners to these petitions are employed as Assistant
Teachers in Vrushali Madhyamik Vidyalaya run and administered by the
respondent nos.1 and 2. According to the petitioner - Shri Nandkumar
Shelke in Writ Petition No.5884/2016 though he is continuously working
as an Assistant Teacher in the said school, the respondent nos.1 and 2
have not paid the salary to him till the date of filing of the writ petition.
Similarly, according to the petitioner - Shri Sanjay Naukarkar in Writ
wp5884.16.odt
Petition No.7013/2016, though he is continuously working in the school
from 1/12/2006, the respondents have not paid the salary to him till
February, 2017 when the Education Officer has started paying only 20%
of the salary to the petitioner after the school was brought on 20% grant-
in-aid. It is stated that both the petitioners have started receiving only
20% of the salary w.e.f. February, 2017 and the arrears of salary w.e.f.
22/6/2005 and 1/12/2006 are liable to be paid to the petitioners.
Since the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were
not paid salary from the date of their appointment is disputed by the
respondent nos.1 and 2 and the respondent nos.1 and 2 have admitted
that they have not paid the salary to the petitioners from September,
2016, the learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners
would file a civil suit for securing the salary from 19/9/2013 till August,
2016 as the said claim is disputed by the Management and the admission
of the writ petition on this disputed claim would not help the petitioners.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Education
Officer submitted that the school was unaided till February-2017, when it
was brought on only 20% grant-in-aid. It is submitted that 20% of the
salary is being paid to both the petitioners since February - 2017 and the
State Government or the Education Officer will not be liable to pay the
arrears of salary till February, 2017 or the entire salary from February,
wp5884.16.odt
2017 as the school is brought only on 20% grant-in-aid. It is stated that
no directions could be issued against the State Government or the
Education Officer in the aforesaid set of facts.
The learned Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 has
opposed the prayers made in the petitions. It is stated that the
Management has paid the salary to the petitioners since the date of their
appointment. It is stated that the record pertaining to the payment of
salary to the petitioners could not be produced in this Court as there was
a theft in the concerned school and the record pertaining to the salary
was stolen along with some other records. It is, however, fairly stated that
the salary was not paid to the petitioners from September, 2016 till
February, 2017 and from February, 2017, the Education Officer is paying
the salary to the petitioners and the respondent nos.1 and 3 would not be
liable to pay the same. It is stated that the petitioners have not signed on
the muster-roll from September, 2016 till February, 2017.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that
there is much force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioners
that the Management has not paid the salary to the petitioners at least
from the date of filing of the writ petitions till date. We are not inclined to
believe the case of the Management that the entire record pertaining to
the payment of salary to the petitioners is lost and therefore, the
wp5884.16.odt
respondent nos.1 and 2 cannot substantiate their submission that the
salary of the petitioners is paid. We find that the Management has
mischievously raised a plea that the petitioners have not signed on the
muster-roll after the writ petitions were filed till February, 2017. The said
submission is made only with a view to deprive the petitioners of the
salary from September, 2016. It is difficult to believe that the petitioners
did not sign on the muster-roll after they had filed the writ petitions. In
fact, even if they had not signed on the muster-roll earlier, they would
have signed the muster-roll after filing of the writ petitions for a direction
to the respondents to pay the salary. It appears that certain complaints
were made by the petitioners to the Education Officer that the
Management is not allowing them to sign on the muster-roll and hence,
the Education Officer had passed an order permitting the petitioners to
sign the muster-roll.
It is admitted by the respondent nos.1 and 2 that the salary
is not paid to the petitioners from September, 2016 till February, 2017.
We find that from February, 2017 the Education Officer is paying only
20% of the salary to the petitioners as the school is brought on 20%
grant-in-aid. 80% of the salary payable to the petitioners is not paid by
the respondent nos.1 and 2 even after February, 2017.
wp5884.16.odt
Since admittedly the salary is not paid to the petitioners
from September, 2016 till the end of January, 2017 and only 20% of the
salary is paid to the petitioners from February, 2017 till date, it would be
necessary to grant the prayers made by the petitioners for a direction
against the Management to pay the salary for the aforesaid period.
Since the petitioners would be entitled to claim salary in
legal proceedings from 19/9/2013 onwards, the petitioners are free to file
a civil suit for claiming the salary from 19/9/2013 till August, 2016 as
there is a dispute about payment of salary to the petitioners for the said
period.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petitions are
partly allowed. The respondent no.4 is directed to continue to pay 20% of
the salary to the petitioners till the petitioners are in service and if the
school is brought on further grant-in-aid, to pay the appropriate salary to
the petitioners. We direct the respondent nos.1 and 2 to pay the arrears of
full salary to the petitioners from September, 2016 till January, 2017 and
arrears of 80% of their salary for the period from February, 2017 till date.
The respondent nos.1 and 2 are directed to continue to pay the regular
salary to the petitioners except the salary, that is, payable by the
Education Authorities. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are directed to make
the payment of arrears of salary to the petitioners within six weeks. The
wp5884.16.odt
petitioners are at liberty to take an appropriate proceeding to seek the
arrears of salary about which there is a dispute.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
