Bombay High CourtWP/433/2005disposed offdismissed for default

Raju Bhimabhau Panmand v. State Of Mah And ORS

2016-08-25Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice K.L. Wadane10 pages

UNREPORTED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

WRIT PETITION NO.433 OF 2005.

Raju S/o Bhimbhau Panmand, Age 30 years, Occ.Service, R/o Pimpri Jalsen, Tq. Parner, Dist.Ahmednagar.

... Petitioner.

Versus

1.The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.The Director of Education, (Secondary), Central Building Pune-1.

3. The Education Officer, (Secondary), Z.P.Ahmednagar.

4. The Dy.Director of Education (Secondary) Pune Region,Central Building, Pune-1.

5.The Hindwai Shikshan Sanstha, Nighoj, Tq. Parner, District Ahmednagar, through its Secretary, Shri Shivaji S/o Ganpat Waral, Age 44 years, Occ.Business, R/o Nighoj, Tq. Parner, Dist.Ahmednagar.

6. The Hidwi Shikshan Sanstha,

Nighoj, Tq. Parner, Dist.

Ahmednagar, through its President Prabhakar S/o Narayan Kawad, Aged 56 years, Occ.Business, R/o Nighoj, Tq.Parner, Dist.Ahmednagar, At present R/o Third Pasta Line, Shahid Bhagatsingh Road, Kolaba, Gulshan Building, Kolaba, Mumbai-5.

(Respondent No.6 is deleted as per order dt.5.7.2005.).

7. Malganga Vidyalay Nighoj, Tq. Parner, Dist.Ahmednagar, through its Head Master.

... Respondents.

...

WITH C.A.NO.11417 OF 2008 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.436 OF 2005 Laxman S/o Pandurang Pathare, Age 30 years, Occ.Service, R/o Patharwadi (Nighoj), Tq. Parner, Dist.Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner.

Versus

1.The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.The Director of Education, (Secondary), Central Building Pune-1.

3. The Education Officer, (Secondary), Z.P.Ahmednagar.

4. The Dy.Director of Education (Secondary) Pune Region,Central Building,

Pune-1.

5.The Hindwai Shikshan Sanstha, Nighoj, Tq. Parner, District Ahmednagar, through its Secretary, Shri Shivaji S/o Ganpat Waral, Age 44 years, Occ.Business, R/o Nighoj, Tq. Parner, Dist.Ahmednagar.

6. The Hidwi Shikshan Sanstha, Nighoj, Tq. Parner, Dist.

(Respondent No.6 is deleted as per order dt.5.7.2005.).

7. Malganga Vidyalay Nighoj, Tq. Parner, Dist.Ahmednagar, through its Head Master.

... Respondents.

...

WITH C.A.NO.11433 OF 2008.

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2398 OF 2005 Ramdas S/o Govind Tikone, Age 31 years, Occ.Service, R/o Vesdare, Post Khanur Pathar, Tq.Parner, Dist.Ahmednagar.

... Petitioner.

Versus

1.The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Education Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.The Director of Education, (Secondary), Central Building Pune-1.

3. The Education Officer, (Secondary), Z.P.Ahmednagar.

4. The Dy.Director of Education (Secondary) Pune Region,Central Building, Pune-1.

5.The Hindwai Shikshan Sanstha, Nighoj, Tq. Parner, District Ahmednagar, through its Secretary, Shri Shivaji S/o Ganpat Waral, Age 44 years, Occ.Business, R/o Nighoj, Tq. Parner, Dist.Ahmednagar.

6. The Hidwi Shikshan Sanstha, Nighoj, Tq. Parner, Dist.

(Respondent No.6 is deleted as per order dt.5.7.2005.).

7. Malganga Vidyalay Nighoj, Tq. Parner, Dist.Ahmednagar, through its Head Master.

... Respondents.

...

Mr.N.L.Jadhav, advocate for the petitioners.

Mrs.M.A.Deshpande, A.G.P. for the State.

Mr.V.D.Hon, Senior advocate for Respondent No.5.

...

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND K.L.WADANE,JJ.

Date : 25.08.2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.) 1.

Heard.

All these Writ Petitions are filed claiming arrears of salary. Mr.Jadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners states that petitioners were appointed by the Respondent institution in the year 1999. They were working up to 2004 but not a single farthing is paid to the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, though the Respondent School started receiving 20% grant in the year 2004-05, still, even if the School is unaided, the institution is not absolved from its duty to pay the salary to its employees. The petitioners are appointed after following due procedure. The Respondents be directed to pay the salary to the petitioners since June, 1999 till the date of filing of the petition.

Mr.Hon, learned Senior advocate for the Respondent institution submits that the petitioners were never appointed by following due procedure of law on regular basis.

The petitioners themselves had approached the institution and requested that for the purpose of experience, they may be allowed to teach without any remuneration. According to the learned Senior advocate, the petitioners can not claim any salary as of right inasmuch as the petitioner had offered to teach on their own accord. The Respondent-Management was granted permission on grant-in-aid basis for running 8th to 10th standard from academic year 2000. According to the learned Senior advocate, even as per staffing pattern, the petitioners were not on sanctioned posts. The said posts are to be filled in as per roster by appointing duly qualified teachers. The petitioners were never given any appointment orders and they have only gained experience for which the Headmaster has issued the certificate for enabling them to take employment. The petitioners can not be permitted to take undue advantage of the said letter.

Learned A.G.P. states that the Management has not made available the Muster roll. The learned A.G.P. further states that appointment orders were never issued from 19972000 to any employee. The inquiry was conducted in this regard.

We have considered the submissions.

The fact is that when the petitioners were appointed and were working, the Respondent institution was not getting grant-in-aid, however, that does not absolve the Respondent institution from its liability to pay salary to its employees. The affidavit filed by the Deputy Education Officer states that Respondentinstitution has not made available the Muster roll nor it had issued appointment orders to any of its employees. Even the affidavit filed by the institution makes it crystal clear that the petitioners were rendering services. Their only plea is that these petitioners were not issued any appointment orders and on their own accord, the petitioners had shown their willingness to

perform the duties. The said stand now can not be accepted. It would be too late in the day to contend the same. Even the certificate is issued by the Headmaster.

This Court has directed the Respondent institution to deposit the amount to the extent of 50% of the arrears. The same is deposited by the Respondent-institution in this Court. Without entering into the dispute about the quantum of the amount which the petitioners would be entitled to and also considering the time lag and the fact that at the relevant time, the said School was not grant-in-aid, we dispose of these petitions allowing the petitioners to withdraw the amount deposited by the Respondentinstitution as payment of arrears of salary in toto.

In the result, it is held that the petitioners are entitled for the arrears of salary for the period for which they had worked with the Respondent-institution. The amount deposited by the Respondent-institution pursuant

to the orders of this Court are allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioners along with accrued interest, if any and the same shall be towards full and final payment of their arrears of their salary for having worked with the Respondentinstitution. 9.

Rule accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs.

10.

In view of disposal of Writ petitions, the Civil Applications also stand disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (K.L.WADANE,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp433.05