Uttam Budhaji Waghode vs Navjeevan Society Thru. Secty. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11937 Bom

                                                      1                                      LPA287.12(J)

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                       LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.287 OF 2012 IN
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 1181/2007(D)
APPELLANT :                     Uttam Budhaji Waghode
                                Aged about 55 years, Occ. Service
                                R/o. At and post Kothadi, Tq. Motala,
                                District Buldhana.
                                //versus//

RESPONDENTS : 1. Navjeevan Society, Amravati.
                 Through its Secretary,
                 Office at Jog Bungalow, Camp Amravati, Amravati.
                            2. The Headmaster,
                               Deepshikha,
                               Tq. Chikaldara, District Amravati.
                           3. The Education Officer(Secondary)
                              Zilla Parishad,
                              Tq. and District Amravati.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Apurva De, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri V.P.Marpakwar, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Mrs. Sangeeta S. Jachak, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR and G.A.SANAP, JJ.

DATED : 26th August, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.S.Chandurkar, J.)

A limited challenge raised by the appellant to the order dated

05.03.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1181/2007 is

that the monetary compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded to the appellant in lieu of

reinstatement on account of his superannuation is on a lower side.

2 LPA287.12(J)

2. Shri Apurv De, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant was appointed as 'Education Instructor' by order dated 31.08.2002 on

consolidated pay of Rs.5,000/- per month. He continued in service from 01.09.2002

to 30.06.2005. However by order dated 22.06.2005 the services of the appellant

came to be terminated with effect from 30.06.2005. He submits that the appeal

filed before the School Tribunal came to be dismissed. In the writ petition

challenging the order of termination, the learned Single Judge found that the

appointment of the appellant was made in accordance with the provisions of Section

5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)

Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, the said Act) On that premise after recording a

finding that there was no material to hold that the services of the appellant were

unsatisfactory, the judgment of the School Tribunal was set aside. In view of the fact

that the appellant had attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2010, the

learned Single awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- for wrongful termination of

services of the petitioner. It is submitted that considering the fact that the appellant

had a right to hold the post in question, the amount of compensation as awarded is

on a lower side and the same deserves to be enhanced.

3. Shri V.P.Marpakwar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2

opposed the aforesaid submissions. According to him, the appellant served for a

period of less than three years after which his services came to an end. Considering

the fact that the appellant had attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2010 his

total service, if the same was not terminated, would have been less than ten years.

Hence the amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- as awarded was reasonable not

3 LPA287.12(J)

requiring any enhancement.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have perused

the material placed on record. It may be noted that the finding recorded by the

learned Single Judge as to the entitlement of the appellant to hold the post in

question is not challenged by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. That finding has thus

attained finality. The only question to be determined is the amount of compensation

to which the appellant could be held entitled. In this regard reference can be made

to the provisions of Section 11 (2)(e) of the said Act. As per that provision in any

appropriate case where it is not possible to reinstate the employee, he can be

granted salary of six months along with allowances if he had been in services of the

school for a period of less than ten years.

5. As noted above, the entire service of the appellant with the respondent

nos. 1 and 2 from 31.08.2002 to 30.06.2005 would be less than ten years and hence

we find that the appellant can be given benefit of aforesaid provision. The amount of

compensation would liable to be paid as per Section 11 (2)(e) of the said Act to the

appellant.

6. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed :

(i) The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 05.03.2012 in Writ

Petition No.1181/2007 is partly modified. Instead of the amount of compensation of

Rs.25,000/-, it is held that the appellant is entitled to receive compensation in

accordance with the provisions of Section 11 (2) (e) of the said Act read with

Schedule C of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)

4 LPA287.12(J)

Rules 1981. If the amount of Rs.25,000/- has already been received by the

appellant, the same shall be deducted from the total entitlement of compensation as

per the provisions of Section 11(2)(e) of the said Act. The balance payment be made

by the respondent no.1 within six weeks from today.

(ii). Letters Patent Appeal No.287/2012 is partly allowed in aforesaid terms.

There shall be no orders as to costs.

                  JUDGE                             JUDGE




Andurkar..