Satyabhamabai W/O Sagar ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10348 Bom

                            1/4                     26.wp.2070.21.F.odt


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 2070/2021

     Mrs. Satyabhamabai w/o. Sagar Tembhurne,
     Aged about 61 years, Occupation - Retired,
     R/o. Lashkaribagh, Sankalpit Buddha Vihar,
     Near Vidhata Press, Nagpur.                  PETITIONER

            VERSUS

1.   State of Maharashtra
     Through Secretary,
     School Education and Sports Department,
     Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.

2.   The Director of Education,
     Central Building Camp,
     Near Sasun Hospital,
     Pune - 411 001.

3.   Deputy Director of Education,
     Nagpur Division, Nagpur,
     Balbharti, Opp. Dhantoli Park, Dhantoli,
     Nagpur.

4.   The Education Officer (Secondary),
     Zilla Parishad, Nagpur,
     Tah. and District - Nagpur.

5.   Ujwal Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
     Through its President -
     Shri Ganesh s/o. Jayram Tarvekar,
     R/o. Nagbhir, Tah. Nagbhir,
     District - Chandrapur.

6.   Ujwal Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,              Amended as per
     Through its Secretary ( Head Master) -       Court's order dated
     Shri Vinod s/o. Vishwanath Mendhe,           26.11.2021.
     R/o. C/o. Uday Vidyalaya, Antoji Nagar,
     Bhandewadi, Nagpur - 440035.                 RESPONDENTS
                              2/4                       26.wp.2070.21.F.odt




Mr. V. N. Patre, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms H. N. Jaipurkar, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent
Nos.1 to 4/State.
Mr. S. N. Nandeshwar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 and 6.


      CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.
      DATED     : OCTOBER 07, 2022


JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned

Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner came to be appointed on the post of Assistant

Teacher on 26.11.1981. The School where the petitioner was appointed

came to be transferred to the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the year 2007.

Thereafter, the petitioner came to be promoted on the post of Head

Mistress on 20.10.2007. During the course of service, enquiry was held

against the petitioner and on conclusion of the enquiry proceedings, her

services came to be terminated on 13.03.2010. The petitioner challenged

the order of termination by filing an Appeal under Section 9 of the

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)

Regulation Act, 1977. The School Tribunal, however, dismissed that

Appeal and the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.3173/2014 challenging

that order. During pendency of the Writ Petition, there was a compromise 3/4 26.wp.2070.21.F.odt

between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The Management

withdrew the order of termination and the petitioner gave up the back

wages for the relevant period. In the meanwhile, the petitioner attained

the age of superannuation on 30.06.2010. The Writ Petition preferred by

the petitioner was disposed of in terms of the compromise pursis on

12.04.2019. Thereafter, a proposal for release of pension and other

benefits was forwarded by the Management to the Education Officer

(Secondary). Since the petitioner has not received pensionary benefits,

she approached this Court in the present Writ Petition.

3. It is seen from the record that after the Management has

submitted all relevant documents, the Education Officer by

communication dated 24.02.2021 sought guidance from the School

Education and Sports Department as to whether the petitioner would be

entitled for pensionary benefits. In view of that communication, this

Court on 14.01.2022 has directed to the learned Assistant Government

Pleader to obtain instructions as regards response of the respondent No.1

to the said communication. Despite grant of sufficient time, there is no

affidavit filed. In this regard, we find that the interests of justice would be

served by directing the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to take necessary steps and

after examining the proposal submitted by the Management seeking

release of pensionary benefits of the petitioner dated 02.05.2019, take a 4/4 26.wp.2070.21.F.odt

decision thereon. If found necessary, the said respondents can seek

assistance of the Management as well as the petitioner in that regard. The

respondent Nos.2 to 4 shall take a necessary decision on the aforesaid

proposal within a period of eight weeks from receiving the copy of this

judgment. It is made specifically clear that if no decision is taken by the

said respondents within the aforesaid period, the same would be

considered as disobedience of the direction issued herein. Necessary

decision on the said proposal be taken in accordance with the law.

4. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)

RGurnule.

Digitally signed byRANJANA MANOJ MANDADE Signing Date:10.10.2022 14:47