Bombay High Court
Rahul Murlidhar Dhoble vs The Municipal Corporation For Greater ... on 7 May, 2024
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M. M. Sathaye
Husen 1 26 WP-5016-2022 (C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5016 OF 2022
Rahul Murlidhar Dhoble ...Petitioner
Versus
The Municipal Corporation For Greater Mumbai
and Ors. ...Respondents
****
Mr. Makarand Bakore, for Petitioner.
Mr. Ashutosh Gavnekar a/w. Mr. Anand Khairnar, for the
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-BMC.
Ms. Ashwini A. Purav, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 to 7.
****
Digitally signed
by
HUSENBASHA HUSENBASHA
RAHAMAN RAHAMAN
CORAM: NITIN JAMDAR &
NADAF NADAF
Date: 2024.05.10
12:15:23 +0530
M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE : 7 MAY 2024
P.C.:
. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The Petitioner working with a secondary school run by the
Respondent- Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, has sought
reimbursement of medical expenses, since he received a
communication on 14 August 2017 from the Municipal Corporation
that as per the Circular dated 23 March 2016, the Petitioner's claim
for medical reimbursement cannot be accepted.
3. Affidavit in reply dated 22 April 2024 is filed on behalf of the
Municipal Corporation, by the Education Officer wherein it is stated
that as per the Group Insurance Scheme introduced by the
::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 22:59:09 :::
Husen 2 26 WP-5016-2022 (C).doc
Municipal Corporation, on 18 September 2019 and 28 April 2022,
the secondary school teachers and non teaching staff are excluded
from the benefits of medical reimbursement and therefore since there
is no policy for reimbursement of medical expenses for employees
such as the Petitioner, the same cannot be processed at the level of
the Corporation and the matter is forwarded to the Education
Inspector, State of Maharashtra on 3 April, 2024.
4. The learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation submits
that since ultimately the amount would come from the State
Government a query is raised with State Government which is
pending. As to the stand of the State Government, the learned AGP,
on instructions, submits that a query was raised by the Deputy
Director of Education, Mumbai to the Education Officer, Municipal
Corporation on 20 October 2016 upon receipt of the Petitioner's
proposal that what was the methodology for processing of
reimbursement on such bills in past. The learned AGP states that this
information is awaited therefore, the matter was not processed.
Therefore, what we discern is that the proposal is now pending with
the Deputy Director of Education who has raised certain quarries.
5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn our attention
in the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Shri
Suresh Mahadeorao Ahio and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and
Ors.1 in which Action Committee of Employees of Grant-in-Aid
1 Writ No.162 of 2016 decided on 30 August 2016.
::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 22:59:09 :::
Husen 3 26 WP-5016-2022 (C).doc
High School, Middle School & Junior College of Municipal Council,
Arvi was Petitioner No.5 seeking a declaration that the Petitioners
are entitled to benefits of medical reimbursement. The Division
Bench in judgment dated 30 August 2016, after considering the
position opined that there is discrimination between the employees
of secondary schools and primary schools as regards medical
reimbursement and passed the following order:
"11. We are of the considered view that the stand
taken in the affidavit is totally unsustainable. If the
stand, as stated in the affidavit is to be accepted, the
Government Resolution dated 12th May 1989 is to be
totally ignored. Apart from that, it will lead to a
anomalous situation. In the same Municipal Council if
a teacher is working in a primary school, he/she would
be entitled to the said Government Resolution.
However if another employee working in the same
school but teaching in secondary or higher secondary
classes, he/she would not be entitled to the benefit.
Likewise a teacher working in private aided Higher or
Secondary school which comes under the control of the
Education Officer, the teacher would be entitled to the
benefit. However a teacher working in the school
managed by the Municipal Council/ Municipal
Corporation in secondary, higher secondary, which also
comes under the control of the same Education
Officer, the teacher would not be entitled to the said
benefit. We, therefore, find that the stand taken by the
respondent-State is unsustainable in law. The Petition
is therefore deserves to be allowed. Hence the
following order :
ORDER
i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
Husen 4 26 WP-5016-2022 (C).doc
ii) The impugned order dated 24th July, 2015 issued
by the Desk Officer is quashed and set aside.
iii) It is held that the teaching as well as non-teaching
staff employed in a primary, secondary, higher
secondary school, Technical school is entitled to the
benefit of the expenses on medical reimbursement, in
view of the Government Resolution dated 12 th May
1989. Consequently, the petitioners would also be
entitled to the benefit of the Government Resolution.
iv) It is directed that the order issued by the State of
Maharashtra dated 3rd February, 2015 shall hold the
field. The amount sanctioned as per the said order shall
be disbursed to the petitioners within a period of two
weeks from today.
v) The learned Additional Government Pleader is
requested to forward a copy of this judgment and order
to the Principal Secretary, School Education, with a
direction that if any of cases of the employees which
are similar to that of the petitioners are pending, either
with himself or with any of his subordinate officers, the
same shall be decided expeditiously, in the light of the
directions stated herein-above. He is further directed to
circulate a copy of this judgment to the Director of
Education, all the Deputy Directors of Education and
the all the Education Officers within the state of
Maharashtra so that they can take necessary steps in
respect of the proposal of the similarly circumstanced
employees.
vi) The notice issued to Shri N.P. Thorat stands
discharged.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms."
6. It is not informed to us that this order has been set aside,
Husen 5 26 WP-5016-2022 (C).doc
modified, or varied and therefore, it is continued as binding on the
State.
7. Therefore, we direct the Deputy Director of Education to
examine the decision rendered in the case of Shri Suresh
Mahadeorao Ahio (supra) and process the papers of the Petitioner
which are referred to in the communication dated 20 October 2016
annexed to this Petition and take necessary decision thereupon and
communicate the same to the Petitioner by 8 July 2024. If the case of
the Petitioner is covered by the said decision, the amount be released
by the next date. If it is not covered, then the Deputy Director of
Education will pass a reasoned order giving reasons as to why the
decision of this Court in the case Shri Suresh Mahadeorao Ahio
(supra) is not applicable.
8. Stand over to 15 July 2024.
( M.M. SATHAYE, J.) ( NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
