Bombay High Court
Mahatarba Alias Madhvkar Bhikaji ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 22 August, 2023
Bench: G.S. Patel, Dr. Neela Gokhale
Mahatarba alias Madhukar Bhikaji Janrao v. State of
2023:BHC-AS:23888
Maharashtra & Ors
3-aswp-371-2022-J.doc
Gitalaxmi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 371 OF 2022
Mahatarba alias Madhukar
Bhikaji Janrao,
Age: 54 years, Occ.Service, Residing at
Bhimashankar Niwas, Bajirao Nagar-B,
Paregaon Road, Yeola, Tal.-Yeola, Dist.-
Nashik-423 401. ...Petitioner
~ versus ~
1. State of Maharashtra
through its Principal Secretary,
Department of School Education &
Sports, Madam Kama Road,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Chairman,
Samata Shikshan Prasarak
Sanstha,
Yeole, 'Vidroh', Patel Colony, Vinchur
Road, Yeola, Tal.-Yeola, Dist.-Nashik-
423 401.
3. The Secretary,
Samata Shikshan Prasarak
Sanstha,
Yeole, 'Vidroh', Patel Colony, Vinchur
Road, Yeola, Tal.-Yeola, Dist.-Nashik-
423 401.
Page 1 of 8
22nd August 2023
Mahatarba alias Madhukar Bhikaji Janrao v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors
3-aswp-371-2022-J.doc
4. Head Master,
Krantivir Mahatma Phule
Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
Kusur, At Post Kusur, Tal.-Yeola,
Dist.-Nashik-423 101.
5. Education Officer
(Secondary),
Department of Education, Zilla
Parishad, Nashik-422 001.
6. Deputy Director,
Office of the Regional Deputy
Director (Education), Nashik Div.,
Divisional Commissionarate, Opp.
ISP, Nashik Road, Nashik-422 101.
Email:[email protected]
7. The Director of Higher
Education,
Government of Maharashtra, Central
Building, Pune-411 001.
Email:[email protected]
8. Section Officer,
Department of School Education and
Sports, Madam Kama Road,
Mantralaya Vistar Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. ...Respondents
A PPEARANCES
for the Petitioner Mr Eknath R Dhokale.
for Respondent No. Mr VM Mali, AGP.
1-state
for Respondent Nos. Mr NV Bandiwadekar, Senior
2 to 4 Advocate, i/b AN
Bandiwadekar.
Page 2 of 8
22nd August 2023
Mahatarba alias Madhukar Bhikaji Janrao v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors
3-aswp-371-2022-J.doc
CORAM : G. S. Patel &
Neela Gokhale, JJ.
DATED : 22nd August 2023
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Neela Gokhale, J.):-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Respondents have
filed Affidavit in Reply. Heard finally with consent of the Parties.
2. This is a second round of litigation. The relief sought by the
Petitioner in the present matter has already been granted to him by
this Court in an earlier Writ Petition. The grievance of the
Petitioner in the present proceeding is in respect of the failure of the
Respondents to comply with the directions issued by this Court
earlier. The writ remedy cannot be invoked to repeatedly grant
reliefs already granted to the Petitioner by this Court itself in earlier
proceedings under its writ jurisdiction. The Petition is
misconceived.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in the Petition briefly
are these. Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 are the Chairman and
Secretary of the educational trust, namely, Samta Shikshan Prasarak
Sanstha, Yeole respectively. The Trust runs Krantivir Mahatma
Phule Madhyamik Vidyalaya of which Respondent No. 4 is the
Headmaster. The Respondents No. 5 to 8 are the officials of the
Education Department of Respondent No. 1, the State of
22nd August 2023
Mahatarba alias Madhukar Bhikaji Janrao v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors
3-aswp-371-2022-J.doc
Maharashtra. The Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher
in the School on 22nd June 1992.
4. The services of the Petitioner were orally terminated. He
challenged the termination order in the School Tribunal, Nashik.
The School Tribunal by its order dated 14th May 1997 set aside the
termination order with directions to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to
reinstate him while rejecting his prayer for back wages. The
Petitioner resumed his service on 21st July 1997. However, the
approval for his services was wrongly given from the date of his
reinstatement instead of the date of his initial appointment. He was
also denied continuous service. Aggrieved by this, the Petitioner
filed Writ Petition No.2862 of 1998 in this Court seeking back wages
and continuity of service. This Court by its order dated 18th
October 2007 declared the Petitioner's continuity of service from
the date of his appointment and directed the Respondents to release
back wages for the period prior to his reinstatement. The
Respondents failed to comply with the order passed by this Court.
The Petitioner thus, filed a Special Darkhast No.97 of 2008 before
the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik for recovery of back wages.
A Court Commissioner was appointed to give his report and
ultimately the Darkhast was closed in full satisfaction of the
executable order on 2nd February 2013.
5. The grievance of the Petitioner is that, despite the orders of
this Court, the Respondents have failed to consider his service from
the date of his appointment and have not appropriately fixed his
seniority. It is this inaction on the part of the Respondents that he
assails in the present Writ Petition.
22nd August 2023
Mahatarba alias Madhukar Bhikaji Janrao v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors
3-aswp-371-2022-J.doc
6. Mr Eknath Dhokale, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, says
that despite innumerable representations made by the Petitioner,
Respondents No. 2 to 4 have failed to comply with the order of this
Court and the School Tribunal and Respondents No.5 to 8 have
failed to act against the Management for the non-compliance. He
urges us to declare once again that the Petitioner is entitled to all
service benefits as Assistant Teacher from the date of his initial
appointment and further direct the Respondents to implement the
orders of the School Tribunal. He further seeks imposition of heavy
penalty upon the Respondents under Section 13 of The Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation
Act, 1977 ("MEPS") in addition to action under Rule 97 (1)(2) of
the Secondary School Code, 1981 ("SSC").
7. Mr Bandiwadekar, learned Counsel for the Management,
states that the Management has already complied with all the orders
and there is no question of imposing any penalty on it. He further
says that the Petitioner is governed by the provisions of the MEPS
Act and Rules made thereunder and hence, there is no question of
invoking the SSC. The Management also points out that since the
Petitioner did not possess the qualification of B.Ed. at the time of
his initial appointment but acquired it only at the time of his
reinstatement, the Management had treated him as a trained
graduate teacher only from the date of his reinstatement. He, agrees
that full satisfaction has been marked and recorded in the Darkhast
proceedings taken by the Petitioner. He also points out that the
Petitioner has deliberately and mischievously suppressed the
relevant facts from this Court: the Petitioner is being paid salary in
revised pay scale under the 7th Pay Commission from the grant
22nd August 2023
Mahatarba alias Madhukar Bhikaji Janrao v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors
3-aswp-371-2022-J.doc
sanctioned and released by the 4th Respondent, the Education
Officer. He seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.
8. Mr VM Mali, learned AGP for the State, says that in
compliance with the orders of this Court and the School Tribunal,
the State authorities directed the Management to submit a proposal
regarding the Petitioner. No such proposal has been received by the
Government till date. He further points out that the Petitioner has
an option to lodge his complaint in the office of the Deputy Director
of Education, Nashik or raise his grievance before the Regional
Redressal Committee for Complaints of Secondary Staff formed
under the chairmanship of the Deputy Director of Education as per
Government Resolutions ("GR") of 29th July 2019, 29th August
2019 and 1st October 2019. The proposal when submitted by the
Management will be finalised by the Government at the earliest. He
thus also prays that the Petition be dismissed.
9. It is clear from the relief sought in the present Petition that
the Petitioner is re-agitating a relief already granted to him in the
earlier Writ Petition by this Court. It is also an admitted fact that the
Special Darkhast filed by him was satisfied and an amount of
Rs.86,000/- was deposited by the Management. This Court by its
order dated 18th October 2007 has specifically granted continuity of
service and arrears of back wages. The Civil Court was also pleased
to appoint a Court Commissioner in the Darkhast proceedings and
recovered the arrears of back wages. The Petitioner made no
complaint in this regard. Section 13 of the MEPS Act provides for
penalty to the Management for failure to comply with the Tribunal's
directions. The relief sought by the Petitioner for imposition of
22nd August 2023
Mahatarba alias Madhukar Bhikaji Janrao v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors
3-aswp-371-2022-J.doc
heavy penalty must thus be made before the School Tribunal and
not before this Court. Similarly, Rule 97(1)(2) of the SSC provides
for reduction in grants. It vests a discretion in the Education
Department to reduce grants to the Management in case of any
contravention of the provisions of the Rules in the SSC generally
relating to deterioration in general efficiency and in cases of gross
mismanagement, etc. The facts in the present case do not indicate
any act of gross mismanagement to justify directing action under
Rules 97(1) and (2) of the SSC. The grievance of the Petitioner is
particular to him alone and does not emanate from any
mismanagement. In any case, this Court has already declared his
seniority from the date of his initial appointment and in addition to
release of back wages. The case of the Petitioner relates only to
enforcement of the orders of this Court.
10. We are of the considered view that this Court cannot be called
upon to repeatedly grant the same relief especially since relief has
already been granted to him in an independent and earlier Writ
Petition over and above the directions of the School Tribunal. There
is no violation of any fundamental rights of the Petitioner and
neither has he pleaded the same.
11. In the light of the above, the Petition is misconceived. The
Department has already indicated its willingness to approve the
proposal whenever it is received from the Management. The
Management has already been directed by this Court to grant
continuity in service to the Petitioner in its earlier order. If the
Petitioner is aggrieved by non-compliance of any order of this Court
22nd August 2023
Mahatarba alias Madhukar Bhikaji Janrao v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors
3-aswp-371-2022-J.doc
or the Tribunal, he is at liberty to take necessary steps in appropriate
proceedings in that regard and all contentions are left open.
12. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
(Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J)
Kotawadekar 22nd August 2023
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 22/08/2023 17:37:43
