Smt. Badeghar Kauser A Karim And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thru The ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8452 Bom

                                        23.WPNo.100432022.doc

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

             WRIT PETITION NO. 10043 OF 2022

Badeghar Kauser A. Karim & Anr.         ...     Petitioners
     Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.         ...     Respondents

Mr. Akhil Kupade i/b. Manoj Harit & Co., Advocate for the
Petitioners.

Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for the Respondents/State.

                       CORAM:     S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                  MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ.

                       DATED :    AUGUST 26, 2022

P.C.

1. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 was appointed as an 'Assistant Teacher' in Urdu High School, Ter, Taluka and District - Osmanabad in the year 1993. Respondent No.3 has already granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner No.1 under order dated 3rd December 1994. On 6th May 1998, the school where the petitioner No.1 was working was derecognised. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 was absorbed in the year 2008 under the orders of the Education Offcer with Anglo Urdu Highschool, Barshi. The learned Counsel submits that neither the pay scale is being fied considering the period from the termination of the petitioner No.1 till her absorption nor the continuity is being given. The learned Counsel relies on the judgment and order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 11 th October 2017 in Writ Petition No. 5887 of 2016 at its Principal Seat at Bombay.

Gaikwad RD 1/2

23.WPNo.100432022.doc

2. The learned AGP submits that the petitioner No.1 was terminated in the year 1998 and was subsequently absorbed in the year 2008. Naturally, the said service cannot be counted for any purpose.

3. It appears from the records that the petitioner No.1 was appointed in the year 1993. The appointment was also approved by the Education Offcer (Secondary). The school where the petitioner No.1 was appointed was derecognised in the year 1998. In the year 2008, under the orders of the Education Offcer, the petitioner No.1 was absorbed in another school, meaning thereby that the petitioner No.1 was not responsible for de-recognition of the school.

4. Of course, in view of Rule 25-A of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, the petitioner No.1 would not be entitled for emoluments for the period the petitioner No.1 was retrenched and subsequently absorbed, however, the said period can be counted for the purpose of continuity. The same view was been taken by Division Bench of this Court in writ petition referred to supra and similar such writ petitions.

5. In the light of above, though the petitioner No.1 would not be entitled for actual salary for the period from 1998 till the date the petitioner No.1 was absorbed, however, the said period shall be counted for the purpose of continuity in service for all purposes.

6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.

                               (MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)            (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)
            Digitally signed
            by RAJU
            DATTATRAYA
                               Gaikwad RD                                                        2/2
RAJU       GAIKWAD
DATTATRAYA
GAIKWAD    Date:
           2022.08.30
            11:07:41
            +0530