Bombay High Court
Ajazuddin Zahiruddin vs Public Education Society, Thr. ... on 21 November, 2022
Bench: V. G. Joshi
Order 2111wp3145.22
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3145/2022.
Ajazuddin Zahiruddin
-VERSUS-
Public Education Society and others.
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
Shri P.A. Kadu, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Shri S.M. Vaishnav, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Ms.M.A. Barabde, A.G.P. for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.
DATE : NOVEMBER 21, 2022.
Heard.
2. The petitioner is an employee of
respondent no.1 - Educational Society, who has
been suspended on 26.08.2019, which was
followed by termination dated 22.01.2020. The
said action of management was challenged by the
petitioner before the School Tribunal in an appeal
bearing No.6/2020. The School Tribunal has set
aside the termination and permitted management
to conduct fresh enquiry from the stage of Rule 33
Rgd.
Order 2111wp3145.22
of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School
(Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter
referred to as "the 1981 Rules" for short).
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner
has initially challenged the order of School
Tribunal granting liberty to the Management to
conduct fresh enquiry, however, he has conceded
before this Court that the petitioner is ready to
face the enquiry, which is reflected in the order of
this Court dated 13.06.2022.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that now he has limited grievance
regarding non payment of subsistence allowance,
since beginning. It is his submission that the
petitioner deserves for grant of subsistence
allowance right from his date of suspension i.e.
26.08.2019 till completion of denova enquiry.
5. The management resisted the said
contention by submitting that the petitioner is not
at all entitled for grant of subsistence allowance
for valid reasons.
Rgd.
Order 2111wp3145.22
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that though he has agitated the
ground regarding grant of subsistence allowance
by relying on the decision of Supreme Court in
case of Vidya Vikas Mandal and another .vrs.
Education Officer and another - [2007] 11 SCC
352, however, it was not considered by the
tribunal.
7. Both side conceded that the impugned
judgment does not bear a reference at all whether
the petitioner has argued for grant of subsistence
allowance or not. In short there is no adjudication
by the Tribunal regarding petitioners' entitlement
for subsistence allowance or otherwise.
8. In that view of the matter, by consent of
both the learned counsel for the parties, the matter
is remanded back to the Tribunal for the limited
extent i.e. for recording its finding only about
petitioners' entitlement for subsistence allowance.
Learned Counsel for both sides have agreed that
they would only advance their submissions to said
Rgd.
Order 2111wp3145.22
limited extent. The Tribunal shall complete the
said exercise within a period of 6 weeks from the
date of receipt of the record and proceedings.
9. In is made clear that the interim order
operating in favour of the petitioner during the
pendency of this petition, to continue till the said
exercise is undertaken by the School Tribunal.
10. The learned Counsel for petitioner
makes a statement that he would not raise any
grievance about limitation to complete the enquiry
as specified in Rule 37[f] of the 1981 Rules. Writ
Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
JUDGE
Signed By:RAKESH GANESHLAL
DHURIYA
Private Secretary
High Court of Bombay, at Nagpur
Signing Date:23.11.2022 15:17
Rgd.
