Bombay High Court
Joint Director Of Technical ... vs Dadarao Motiram Bhanawat And ... on 18 July, 2022
Bench: Manish Pitale
57-WP810.19+1.odt
1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 810 OF 2019
Joint Director of Technical Education, Amravati
-Vs.-
Dadarao Motiram Bhanawat and others
WRIT PETITION NO. 5589 OF 2017
Janta Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Pusad and another
-Vs.-
Dadarao Motiram Bhanawat and another
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP No. 810/2019
Mr.K.L.Dharmadhikari, AGP for the petitioner.
Mr.P.B.Patil, counsel for respondent No.1.
WP No. 5589/2017
Mr.A.Z.Jibhkate, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. P.B.Patil, counsel for respondent No.1.
Mr. K.L.Dharmadhikari, AGP for respondent No.2.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 18.07.2022
Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties.
2. These are two petitions challenging the same
judgment and order dated 04/03/2017, passed by
School Tribunal, Amravati, whereby an appeal filed by
the respondent-employee was partly allowed. The order
of termination of service was set aside and the
petitioners in Writ Petition No.5589 of 2017 were
directed to reinstate the respondent-employee within
two months. There were further directions issued for
continuity of service and payment of 50% back wages
from the date of termination of service till the date of
KHUNTE
57-WP810.19+1.odt
reinstatement and the liability of payment of back
wages was imposed on respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the
Tribunal, which included the Joint Director of Technical
Education, Amravati Division, Amravati.
3. Writ Petition No.810 of 2019 was filed by the
Joint Director of Technical Education raising a limited
grievance as regards clauses 4 and 5 of the impugned
judgment of the Tribunal. Writ Petition No.5589 of
2017, was filed by the Management and the Polytechnic
College challenging the said judgment and order of the
Tribunal on merits.
4. Mr. K.L.Dharmadhikari, learned AGP appearing
for the petitioner in Writ petition No.810 of 2019, i.e.
the Joint Director of Technical Education, Amravati
Division, Amravati, submitted that clauses 4 and 5 of
the impugned judgment are unsustainable to the extent
that liability to pay 50% of back wages is foisted on the
Joint Director of Technical Education along with the
Management and the Polytechnic College. It is
submitted that the appeal before the Tribunal proceeded
on the basis that the Polytechnic College run by the
Management was a private unaided institution. It is
brought to the notice of this Court that respondent No.3,
i.e. the Joint Director of Technical Education, before
the Tribunal had specifically brought to the notice of the
Tribunal the aforesaid fact that the Polytechnic College
was an unaided institution. In fact, an application was
filed on behalf of the Joint Director of Technical
Education for deletion from the array of the respondents
on that very ground.
KHUNTE
57-WP810.19+1.odt
5. It appears that the Tribunal did not consider the
application for deletion at all and the specific contention
raised on behalf of the petitioner-Joint Director of
Technical Education that the Polytechnic College was an
unaided institution, was nowhere considered in the
impugned judgment and order. Attention of this Court
was also invited to the written reply filed on behalf of
the Management and the Polytechnic College to
emphasize that there was no denial about the specific
assertion made in the appeal memo filed by the
respondent-employee that the Polytechnic College was a
recognized unaided institution. There was no response
to the aforesaid specific stand taken on behalf of the
Joint Director of Technical Education before the
Tribunal. On this basis, it was submitted that the
liability to pay 50% back wages could not at all be
foisted on the petitioner-Joint Director of Technical
Education. The grievance is limited to that extent.
6. The respondent Nos.2 and 3, i.e. the
Management and the Polytechnic College were served,
but they have chosen not to appear before this Court,
although they are represented by counsel in the
accompanying petition. The respondent-employee is
represented through counsel. In order to appreciate the
limited relief sought by the petitioner in the writ
petition, it would be appropriate to refer to the
operative portion of the order dated 04/03/2017,
passed by the Tribunal. The same reads as follows.
": ORDER :
1) Appeal partly is allowed.
KHUNTE
57-WP810.19+1.odt
2) The termination order dated 22.12.15 of terminating
services of the appellant is hereby quashed and set
aside.
3) The respondent No.1 and 2 are directed to reinstate the
appellant within 2 months from the date of this order on
the post from which his services were terminated.
4) The appellant is entitled for continuity of service and
50% backwages of his back salary from the date of his
termination till the date of his reinstatement.
5) The respondent No.1 to 3 should pay him the
backwages.
6) Copy of this order be sent to the respondent No.3 for
information and necessary action."
7. In clauses 4 and 5 of the above quoted portion
of the order, liability to pay 50% back wages has been
jointly foisted on the Joint Director of Technical
Education also. There is no discussion in the impugned
judgment and order as to why the liability is foisted on
the Joint Director of Technical Education.
8. This Court has perused the material available on
record, i.e. the statement in the appeal memo that the
Polytechnic College in question is a recognized unaided
institution, the specific reply filed in that regard on
behalf of the Joint Director of Technical Education,
pleadings that the said Polytechnic College is an
unaided institution and also the application for deletion
in that regard filed by the Joint Director of Technical
Education. The reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2
and 3 before the Tribunal does not even advert to the
said specific pleadings on record. Therefore, it is found
that there was sufficient material on record to indicate
that the Polytechnic College was an unaided institution.
KHUNTE
57-WP810.19+1.odt
9. In the face of such material available on record,
the Joint Director of Technical Education could not have
been foisted with the liability to pay 50% back wages
along with the Management and the Polytechnic
College.
10. Hence, Writ Petition No.810 of 2019 is allowed
to the extent of prayer clause (i) of the petition.
Consequently, it is held that the petitioner-Joint Director
of Technical Education is not liable in any manner to
pay 50% back wages to respondent No.1-employee.
11. It is made clear that only the liability foisted on
the petitioner-Joint Director of Technical Education is
hereby deleted and interfered with, while no comment
is made on the entitlement of respondent No.1 towards
50% back wages.
12. Writ Petition No.810 of 2019 is disposed of
accordingly.
13. Insofar as Writ Petition No.5589 of 2017 is
concerned, the petitioners therein have already
deposited the amount of back wages in this Court and it
appears that the respondent-employee has already
withdrawn the said amount, as per order dated
04/10/2018.
14. In view of the above, list Writ Petition No.5589
of 2017 for further consideration in the month of
September, 2022, before the appropriate Bench.
Signed By:GHANSHYAM S
KHUNTE
Signing Date:22.07.2022 10:10 JUDGE
KHUNTE
