Bombay High Court
Haribhau Bhilsingh Pawar (Courts ... vs Sanjay Bapurao @ Vijay Tayade And ... on 3 August, 2022
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
941.smc1.2022.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1 OF 2022
IN
CONT. PETITION NO. 116 OF 2020
Haribhau Bhilsingh Pawar
...Versus...
Sanjay Bapurao @ Vijay Tayade and Ors.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------------
Mr. Vijaykumar Paliwal, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Apurv De, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr. N.R. Patil, AGP for respondent No.3.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 03/08/2022
The judgment of the School Tribunal,
Amravati, dated 18.07.2019, gave the following
directions :
"1. The order or termination dated 05.05.2015 w.e.f.
05.05.2015 passed by the Management terminating
the services of the appellant is quashed and set
aside;
2. The appellant shall be treated to have been placed
under suspension with effect from 05.05.2015 and
shall be entitled for subsistence allowance to be paid
to him from that date and the Management shall be
at liberty to conduct de-novo inquiry from the stage
of rule 33 and 36(1) of the Rules;
941.smc1.2022.odt
3. The question of grant of continuity in service and
payment of full backwages to the appellant is kept
open subject to the outcome of the inquiry to be
conducted by the Management against him. The
Management shall take decision accordingly.
4. The Management shall pay the said amount of
subsistence allowance in terms of rule 34 of the
Rules.
5. The amount of subsistence allowance so
calculated shall be paid to the appellant withtin
three months from today without fail and it is
thereafter that the Management shall proceed to
conduct an inquiry.
6. The Management shall further continue to pay the
further subsistence allowance till the completion of
inquiry to the appellant.
7. If the amount is not paid within three months as
directed above, the appellant shall be deemed to
have been reinstated in service with all
consequential benefits and entitled to entire salary
with effect from date of termination;
8. Copy of this order be sent to the respondent No.3
for information and necessary action."
2. By direction No.3 it is directed to the
management to conduct an enquiry regarding the
question of grant of continuity in service and payment of
full back-wages and the result of such enquiry, would
941.smc1.2022.odt
govern the question regarding grant of continuity and
back-wages. Clause No.7 would indicate that this was to
be completed within three months and the amount in
case, it is found due, to be paid within the aforesaid
period and in case it is not so done, the appellant
(petitioner herein) shall be deemed to have been
reinstated in service with all consequential benefits and
entitled to entire salary with effect from date of
termination. It is not in dispute that the enquiry as
contemplated by Clause No.3 of the operative part of the
judgment dated 18.07.2019 has not been conducted.
Even for the other reliefs, the petitioner has been
constrained to file a Contempt Petition No.116/2020 in
this Court, which came to be decided on 09.10.2020. It
is material to note that the question of holding the
enquiry and payment of back-wages has not been gone
in Contempt Petition No.116/2020. The management
had also approached this Court by way of Writ Petition
No.7165/2019, which came to be disposed of in the
following terms:
"10. In view of the above, the present writ petition
is disposed of in following terms :-
(a) The petitioners are granted liberty to frame an
allegation/charge against the respondent No.1
regarding alleged suppression of employment in
another school during pendency of the first enquiry
as also the proceedings before the Tribunal and this
941.smc1.2022.odt
Court.
(b) The petitioners, as well as respondent No.1 shall
have sufficient opportunity before the enquiry
committee to be constituted under Rule 36 of the
said Rules to lead oral and documentary evidence in
respect of such allegation/charge if
framed by the petitioners against respondent No.1
along with other allegations/charges. The
petitioners shall abide by the directions given in the
impugned order including clauses (4) to (7)
pertaining to subsistence allowance to respondent
No.1.
(c) If the enquiry committee renders an adverse
finding against the respondent No.1 on the question
of suppression aforesaid facts, the petitioners shall
be entitled to recover the
subsistence allowance paid to the respondent
No.1,but any such direction in the order upon
culmination of enquiry shall not operate for a
period of four weeks, so as to afford an opportunity
to respondent No.1 to challenge the same in
accordance with law.
(d) The petitioners shall pay the subsistence
allowance so calculated within a period of three
months from today and they shall continue to pay
such subsistence allowance till completion of
enquiry. Needless to say, failure of the petitioners to
comply with this direction will lead to clause No.7
of the impugned order coming into operation.
941.smc1.2022.odt
(e) The petitioners shall abide by all the directions
given in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal
scrupulously and efforts shall be made to complete
the enquiry in the time period specified under the
Rules.
(f) Writ petition is disposed of in above terms. No
order as to costs."
3. Though, the judgment directed enquiry to
be conducted, in spite of extension of time, the same has
not been done. This would clearly being into force
Clause 7 of the judgment dated 18.07.2019 of the
learned School Tribunal, requiring the reinstatement
with all consequential benefits which would include
back-wages. Though, the petitioner has been reinstated,
the back-wages have not been paid, neither calculated.
The management itself has filed an additional affidavit
on 16.11.2021 bearing Stamp No.3/2021 along with
certain documents, in which one of the document at
Page 122 therein indicates that an amount of Rs.
37,28,036/- is the amount due and payable to the
petitioner on account of back-wages. This document is
signed by the Principal Sidharath Vidyalay, Murtizapur,
Dist. Akola. Thus, even without holding an enquiry,
even according to the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the
aforesaid amount is due and payable to the petitioner on
account of back-wages. Since, the above becomes an
941.smc1.2022.odt
admitted position, the management is directed to
deposit in this Court the amount of Rs.37,28,036/-
within a period of three weeks from today.
4. In case, this is not so done, list the matter
on 29.08.2022 for further directions. The President -
respondent No.1 as well as the Secretary of the
management are directed to remain present in the Court
on 29.08.2022.
[AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.]
Prity
Signed By:PRITY S GABHANE
Reason:
Location:
Signing Date:04.08.2022 11:19
