Sant Dhyneshwar Bahu Uddeshiya ... vs Regional Deputy Commissioner ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 17581 Bom

                                                      1                                  16.WP491.20(J)

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 491/2020

1]              Sant Dhyaneshwar Bahu Uddeshiya Mandal, Dhaba,
                through its President-Anil K.Patil (Dhabekar),
                R/o At Dhaba, Tq. Barshitakli, Dist. Akola.

2]              Shri Siddeshwar Primary Ashram School, Dhaba,
                through its Head-master,
                R/o.Dhaba, Tq. Barshitakli, Dist. Akola.
                                                         ....... PETITIONERS
                           ...V E R S U S...
1]              Regional Deputy Commissioner,
                Social Welfare Department, Amravati.
                Office at Behind Police Commissioner Office,
                Camp, Amravati, Tq. and District Amravati.

2]              Assistant Commissioner of Social Welfare, Akola,
                Office at Collector Office Premises,
                2nd floor, Administrative Building, Akola,
                Tq. and District Akola.
3]              Wasudeo Shrikrishna Kadu,
                Age-48 years, Occ. Service,
                R/o Dhaba, Tq. Barshitakli, District Akola.
                                                       ....... RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.S.Patil, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Amit Chutke, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 & 2.
Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for respondent no.3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

DATED : 17th December, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel

for the parties.

2 16.WP491.20(J)

2. The respondent no.3 was engaged as 'Hostel Superintendent' at the

petitioner no.2-Ashram School conducted by the petitioner no.1. It is the case

of the petitioners that since the respondent no.3 did not discharge his duties

in an appropriate manner, departmental enquiry was held against him and

pursuant thereto on 04.02.2019 his services came to be terminated. The

respondent no.3 being aggrieved by the order of termination preferred an

appeal before the State Government. During the pendency of the said appeal,

the respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner of Social Welfare, Akola on

20.12.2019 issued a communication directing the petitioners to reinstate the

respondent no.3 and grant him various benefits. This communication is the

subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

3. Shri P.S.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

insofar as the grievance of the respondent no.3 with regard to termination of

his services are concerned, it is the School Tribunal constituted under the

provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of

Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, 'the said Act') which has jurisdiction

to entertain the appeal. Placing reliance on the judgment dated 21.09.2020 in

Writ Petition No.3330/2019 (Hansh Shikshan Krida and Vayam Prasarak

Mandal and anr. Vs. Laxman Maroti Raut and anr. ) it is submitted that such

view has been taken by the learned Single Judge after relying upon the 3 16.WP491.20(J)

judgment in Latika Rajaram Mane vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

2013(4)Mh.L.J. 244. He therefore submits that since the impugned

communication dated 20.12.2019 pertains to relief that could be sought

before the School Tribunal, the respondent no.2 has no jurisdiction to issue

such direction.

4. Shri Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the respondent no.3

submits that the respondent no.3 being aggrieved by the order of termination

dated 04.02.2019 had preferred an appeal before the Competent Authority as

per the Special Code applicable for Ashram Schools. He submits that in view

of the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the

respondent no.3 was willing to file an appeal before the School Tribunal under

Section 9 of the said Act to challenge the order of termination dated

04.02.2019. He however submits that since the respondent no.3 had

approached the Authority under the Special Code, the time spent for

prosecuting that appeal may be taken into consideration.

5. Shri Amit Chutke, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits

that since the respondent no.2 has considered the grievance raised by the

respondent no.3, the communication dated 20.12.2019 came to be issued. He

however does not dispute the adjudication in Writ Petition No.3330/2019

and the conclusion recorded therein.

4 16.WP491.20(J)

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that an

employee of Ashram School when aggrieved by an order of termination or like

action, an appeal under Section 9 of the said Act can be preferred before the

School Tribunal. In the present case, the respondent no.3 had approached

the Authority under the Special Code seeking redressal of his grievances and

the order of termination has been challenged in that appeal. Considering the

decisions in Latika Rajaram Mane (supra) and Shri Hansh Shikshan Krida and

Vayam Prasarak Mandal (Writ Petition No.3330/2019), we find that the

respondent no.3 is justified in seeking leave to approach the School Tribunal

for challenging the order of termination. It has been held in the aforesaid

decisions that the School Tribunal would be competent to entertain the appeal

of such employee. It is further found that the impugned communication has

been issued by the respondent no.2 while seeking to adjudicate the appeal

that was preferred by the respondent no.3. Since the respondent no.3 now

intends to approach the School Tribunal in that regard, various prayers made

by him can be considered by the School Tribunal.

7. Shri Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 in

the aforesaid backdrop submits that since the School Tribunal would have

jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and consider to grant of ancillary reliefs,

the directions issued in the impugned communication dated 20.12.2019 by

the respondent no. 2 would now cease to operate for want of jurisdiction.

                                                         5                      16.WP491.20(J)




            8.                Accordingly, the following order is passed :

            (1)               The order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the respondent no.2 is set

            aside.

            (2)               The respondent no.3 is at liberty to file appeal under Section 9 of

the said Act before the School Tribunal for challenging the order of

termination dated 04.02.2019. If such appeal is preferred within a period of

three weeks from today, the same shall be entertained on merits without

going into the question of delay. Shri P.S.Patil, learned counsel for the

petitioners does not object to such course. If such appeal is filed by the

respondent no.3, the same shall be considered on its own merits. All points

raised in that regard are kept open.

The writ petition is allowed by making the Rule absolute in

aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

                        (G.A.SANAP, J.)                     (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)



            Andurkar..




Digitally Signed byJAYANT S
ANDURKAR
Personal Assistant
Signing Date:
18.12.2021 17:10