Bombay High Court
Meena D/O Nandlal Widhwani vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Deputy ... on 11 August, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
1
wp2795.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.2795/2017
Meena D/o Nandlal Widhwani,
aged about 52 Yrs., Occ. Service,
R/o Flat No.202, Ambika Grace
Apartments, Behind Eden Garden
Restaurant, Koradi Road, Nagpur. ..Petitioner.
..Vs..
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Deputy Director
Technical & Vocational Education,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2. Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society,
Amravati, Off : Chandak Bunglow,
Amravati (Camp), through its
Secretary.
3. Smt. Sakhubai Khadatakar
Junior College,
through its Principal at Girola (Ingle),
Wardha, Tq. & Dist. Wardha.
4. Bharat Education Society,
Near Sangh Building, Mahal,
Nagpur, through its President.
5. Ramnagar Bharat Junior College
Ramnagar, Nagpur, through its
Head Master. ..Respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri G.M. Shitut, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.A. Madiwale, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.
Shri R.D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Shri A.A. Bansod, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATED :- 11.8.2021.
wp2795.17.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
Heard Shri G.M. Shitut, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri
A.A. Madiwale, learned A.G.P. for respondent No.1, Shri R.D.
Bhuibhar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Shri A.A.
Bansod, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
2. The petitioner, the full time Instructor in M.C.V.C. course having
been appointed on 18.10.1993 was terminated from her service on
23.6.2005 by respondent No.3 college after the Deputy Director of
Education, Technical and Vocational sent a communication to
respondent No.3 college that its M.C.V.C. course taught to 10+2
classes had been closed. Such a case of the termination of services of
petitioner would fall under Rule 26(4) of the Maharashtra Employees
of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short
"Rules of 1981"). It then followed that the petitioner become entitled
to all the rights and benefits which flowed from termination of her
service which was in fact retrenchment on account of closure of
studies as provided under Rule 26.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that she is entitled for
condonation of her break in service as, after her such retrenchment on
23.6.2005, she was absorbed on the directions of the Deputy Director
of Education, Technical and Vocational in respondent No.5 junior
wp2795.17.odt
college run by respondent No.4 on 15.5.2006. Such absorption was
within a period of one year from the date of termination of service /
retrenchment of the petitioner.
4. It is seen from the documents filed on record that the Deputy
Director of Education, Technical and Vocational by his different
communications dated 28.7.2006, 20.1.2017 and 25.1.2017 sent to
respondent Nos.4 and 5 directed them to initiate the necessary action
under the provisions of Rules of 1981 for condoning the break in
service of the petitioner and submitting the appropriate proposal to
them, however, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have not taken any action in
the matter and, therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition.
5. As we have already noted that the petitioner, after termination
of her services / retrenchment under rule 26, was entitled to have all
the benefits flowing from rule 26, the case of the petitioner would be
required to be considered favourably for condonation in break of her
service. In fact this also appears to be the intention of respondent
No.1, when he sent aforestated three communications to respondent
No.5. There are also circulars issued by the Education Department,
which, in the present case would fortify the rights of the petitioner.
These circulars are of 10th May, 1989 and 3rd September, 1993 which
are taken on record today and marked documents "A" and "B". In this
wp2795.17.odt
view of the matter, we direct respondent Nos.4 and 5 to act upon the
communications dated 28.7.2006, 20.1.2017 and 25.1.2017 and
prepare a proposal for condonation of break in service of the
petitioner in accordance with guidelines stated in the circular dated
10th May, 1989 and 3rd September, 1993 and forward the same to
respondent No.1 for his appropriate decision, in accordance with law,
in the matter. Such proposal shall be forwarded by respondent Nos.4
and 5 to respondent No.1 within a period of three weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this order. Petition is allowed in these terms. Rule
accordingly.
6. Authenticated copy of the order be furnished to the learned
counsel for the petitioner and also to learned A.G.P. for its being sent
to the Deputy Director of Education, Technical and Vocational.
7. It is made clear that if the break in service of the petitioner is
condoned, the petitioner would be at liberty to assert whatever rights
that may accrue to her on account of such condonation of break in
service.
JUDGE JUDGE
Tambaskar.
