Bombay High Court
Motiram Vitthalrao Pawar vs Netaji Malhari Jadhav And Others on 18 July, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
107.wp.4474.22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4474 OF 2022
MOTIRAM VITTHALRAO PAWAR
VERSUS
NETAJI MALHARI JADHAV AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Santosh S. Jadhavar
AGP for Respondent: Mr. S.N. Morampalle
Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. R.J. Godbole
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 18.07.2022
PER COURT :
Learned advocate Mr. Godbole submits that he has instructions
to appear on behalf of respondent No.1 in place of advocate Mr. P.R.
Nangare. Learned advocate Mr. P.R. Nangare is discharged.
2. Heard the learned advocates Mr. Jadhavar for the petitioner and
Mr. Godbole for the respondent No.1 finally.
3. The respondent No.1 had preferred an appeal under Section 9
of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
Regulation Act, 1977 (herein after 'the MEPS Act') for declaration that
proposal sent by the respondent management for grant of selection grade to
the respondent No.1 ignoring his claim and seniority was illegal. The School
Tribunal by entertaining the appeal has allowed it and issued following
directions.
107.wp.4474.22.odt
" 1. The appeal is partly allowed with costs.
2. The action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 of sending proposal of
respondent No.4 for selection grade by denying seniority of
appellant and action of respondent No.3 by issuing approval for
the same is declared ab initio illegal, and cancelled.
3. The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to issue selection grade
to the appellant since he is senior than the respondent No.4.
4. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to pay revised pay to the
appellant from the date of promotion as per law. "
4. It was an appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act which reads
as under :
9. Right of appeal to Tribunal to employees of private school.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract for
the time being in force, any employee in a private school,-
(a) who is dismissed or removed or whose services are otherwise
terminated or who is reduced in rank, by the order passed by the
Management; or
(b) who is superseded by the Management while making an
appointment to any post by promotion;
and who is aggrieved, shall have a right to appeal and may appeal
against any such order or supersession to the Tribunal constituted
under section 8:
Provided that, no such appeal shall lie to the Tribunal in any case
where the matter has already been decided by a Court of competent
jurisdiction or is pending before such Court, on the appointed date or
where the order of dismissal, removal, otherwise termination of
service or reduction in rank was passed by the Management at any
time before the 1st July, 1976.
(2) Such appeal shall be made by the employee to the Tribunal,
within thirty days from the date of receipt by him of the order of
dismissal, removal, otherwise termination of service or
107.wp.4474.22.odt
reduction in rank, as the case may be:
Provided that, where such order was made before the
appointed date, such appeal may be made within sixty days
from the said date.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the
Tribunal may entertain an appeal made to it after the expiry of
the said period of thirty or sixty days, as the case may be, if it is
satisfied that the appellant has sufficient cause for not preferring
the appeal within that period.
(4) Every appeal shall be accompanied by a fee of Five hundred
rupees, which shall not be refunded and shall be credited to the
Consolidated Fund of the State.
5. The proposal or entitlement to have a selection grade cannot be
said to be covered by the above provision, wherein the Tribunal has the
jurisdiction to entertain an appeal only in case of dismissal, removal,
termination, reduction in rank or supersession.
6. The order that was sought to be challenged by the respondent
No.1 before the School Tribunal did not fit in any of these categories in as
much as there was no question of any supersession and only it was a matter
of grant of selection grade pay. The respondent No.1 may have his own
remedies under the law to enforce his rights to have a selection grade. But
the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act does not have
jurisdiction to examine the aspect of entitlement of an employee to have a
selection grade.
7. Ignoring such state of affairs and the position of law, the School
Tribunal has exercised the jurisdiction which did not vest in it.
107.wp.4474.22.odt
8. The impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside. It
is made clear that the respondent No.1 would be entitled to lay his claim
which the authorities may consider on its own merits. The time spent by the
respondent No.1 in resorting to a wrong remedy may be considered while
entertaining his representation/petition/claim.
9. The Writ Petition is disposed of.
(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
habeeb
