Bombay High Court
Sudhakar Bajirao Funde vs Bahuuddeshiya Sewa Mandal, ... on 22 January, 2018
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp4638.2015.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4638/2015
PETITIONER : Sudhakar Bajirao Funde,
Aged about 49 years,
Occupation-Nil,
R/o Arjuni Morgaon,
Tah. Arjuni Morgaon,
Dist. Gondia
...V E R S U S...
RESPONDENTS : 1] Bahuuddeshiya Sewa Mandal,
through its Secretary,
Shri Govindrao Krishnaji
Bramhankar, R/o Sangadi/Sasra,
Post-Sangadi, Tah- Sakoli,
Dist. Bhandara.
(correct address given as per Court's
order dated 16/02/2017)
2] Bahuuddeshiya High School,
Arjuni Morgaon, Tah-Arjuni Morgaon,
Dist-Gondia, Through its Headmaster
3] The Education Officer (Sec.),
Zilla Parishad, Gondia
===================================
Shri P.N. Shende, Advocate for the petitioner
Miss H.N. Prabhu, AGP for the respondent no. 3
===================================
CORAM:- Z.A. HAQ,J.
DATED :- 22 nd JANUARY, 2018
::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 00:46:23 :::
Judgment 2 wp4638.2015.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Inspite of service of notice of this petition, none
appears for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Heard Shri P.N. Shende, Advocate for the petitioner
and Miss H.N. Prabhu, AGP for the respondent no. 3-Education
Officer.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2] The petitioner-employee had filed the appeal before the
School Tribunal challenging the order by which his services were
terminated. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 (Management and Head
Master of the School) had opposed the claim of the petitioner-
employee.
By the order dated 09/07/2014, the School Tribunal
has partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner, set aside the
order of termination and directed the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to
reinstate him with continuity of service. However, the claim of the
petitioner for backwages is rejected on the ground that he has not
::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 00:46:23 :::
Judgment 3 wp4638.2015.odt
made any averment in the memorandum of appeal that he was not
in gainfull employment during the relevant period. The petitioner,
being aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for backwages, has
filed this writ petition.
3] The advocate for the petitioner has pointed out that the
order passed by the School Tribunal directing reinstatement of the
petitioner was challenged by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in Writ
Petition No. 4274/2014 which is dismissed by this Court by the
judgment dated 18/06/2015. It is further submitted that the
petitioner-employee is reinstated and is working in the school
administered by the respondent no. 1-Society.
The advocate for the petitioner has pointed out the
pleadings in para 5 of the memorandum of appeal which was filed
before the School Tribunal, to the effect that the petitioner was
not gainfully employed with any other employer. The appeal was
filed by the petitioner within 22 days of issuance of the
termination order. The advocate for the petitioner has admitted
during arguments that the petitioner had not filed any further
affidavit on the point, before the School Tribunal. In these facts, in
normal course, it cannot be said that the petitioner-employee had
::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 00:46:23 :::
Judgment 4 wp4638.2015.odt
placed sufficient material on the record of the Tribunal to uphold
his claim for backwages. However, I find that in para 9 of the
petition filed before this Court, the petitioner has pleaded that he
was not gainfully employed during the relevant period. For
reasons best known to the respondent nos. 1 and 2, they have
opted to keep out of the proceedings and have not controverted
the claim of the petitioner. Further, the respondent nos. 1 and 2
had also not placed any material on record before the School
Tribunal to dispute the claim of the petitioner that he was not
gainfully employed.
4] In view of the above facts, the following order is
passed:-
O R D E R
1] Clause 4 of the operative order passed
by the School Tribunal in Appeal No. STN/111/12
on 09/07/2014 is set aside.
2] It is held that the petitioner is entitled
for backwages for the period from 10/11/2012 till
Judgment 5 wp4638.2015.odt
he is reinstated in service. This amount of
backwages shall be paid by the respondent no. 1-
Management till 16/04/2018 by demand draft or
by depositing the amount in the salary account of
the petitioner.
If the amount is not paid/deposited till
16/04/2018, the respondent no. 1-Management
shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9 % per
annum on the amount of backwages for the period
from 01/08/2014 i.e. immediately after passing of
the order by the School Tribunal till the amount is
paid to the petitioner.
3] The petitioner shall send copy of this
judgment to the respondent no. 1-Management by
speed post acknowledgment due and file affidavit
of compliance till 15/03/2018.
Judgment 6 wp4638.2015.odt
The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Ansari
