Bombay High Court
Samartha Ramdas Shikshan Sanstha, ... vs Deputy Director Of Education, Nagpur ... on 15 February, 2016
Author: A. S. Chandurkar
Bench: Vasanti A. Naik, A. S. Chandurkar
wp4874.15.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.4874 OF 2015
PETITIONER: Samartha Ramdas Shikshan Sanstha,
Amgaon, Tah - Amgaon, Dist - Gondia,
through its President, Shri Ramesh
Pyarelal Ujawane.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS: ig 1. Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur.
2. The Education Officer (Sec.), Zilla
Parishad, Gondia.
3. Smt. Sneha Maniram Kawale,
Headminstress, Samartha High School,
Tigaon, Tah - Amgaon, Dist - Gondia
4. Shri Sukhchand Lahanu Sahare,
Headmaster, Nutan Vidyalaya, Purada,
Tah - Deori, Dist - Gondia.
5. Shri Pyarelal Dhanlal Kotangale,
Headmaster, Lokmanya Vidyalaya,
Darbada, Tah - Salekasa, Dist -
Gondia.
Shri P. N. Shende, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Tajwar Khan, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK
AND
A.S. CHANDURKAR JJ.
DATED
: 15
th
FEBRUARY, 2016.
::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 05:18:25 :::
wp4874.15.odt 2/5
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A. S. Chandurkar, J)
1. In view of notice of final disposal that has been served on the respondents, we have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
3. ig The petitioner in the present writ petition seeks a direction to be issued to the respondent No.2 to release the regular salary of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 by not calculating the annual increment for the Academic Session 2015-2016.
4. The petitioners claim to be in the management of the public trust which is running three schools. The respondent Nos.3 to 5 are serving on the post of Headmistress/Headmaster in those three schools. According to the petitioner, on 28-2-2014 the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner passed an order directing the surviving trustees to run the trust by taking a decision by majority. According to the petitioner, considering the conduct of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 resolution No.2 was passed on 28-6- 2015 and a minor penalty of withholding an annual increment came to be imposed on said respondents. This fact was intimated to the respondent Nos.1 & 2. However, despite imposition of the ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 05:18:25 ::: wp4874.15.odt 3/5 minor penalty, the regular salary along with increments came to be released. Hence, the petitioner have filed the present writ petition.
5. Shri P. N. Shende, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a minor penalty under provisions of Rule 29 of the Maharashtra Employees Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 came to be imposed on the respondent Nos.3 to 5. Though a remedy of filing an appeal before the respondent No.1 was available, no such appeal was filed by the respondent Nos.3 to 5. In the absence of any such appeal being filed, it was not open for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to release the regular salary including the annual increments for the year 2015-2016. It is, therefore, submitted that the appropriate directions in that regard are liable to be issued.
6. Ms. Tajwar Khan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 on the other hand submitted that the action of imposing minor penalty on the respondent Nos.3 to 5 was illegal inasmuch as no sufficient time was granted to the said respondents to submit their explanation. It is submitted that in terms of the Circular dated 6-3-2010, the annual increment to the respondent Nos.3 to 5 came to be granted.
The respondent Nos.3 to 5 though duly served have not chosen to contest the writ petition.
::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 05:18:25 ::: wp4874.15.odt 4/57. It is not in dispute that the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner by order dated 28-2-2014 has directed the surviving trustees of the petitioner trust to manage the affairs as per the decision of the majority of the trustees. The resolution dated 28-6-2015 imposing minor penalty has not been shown to have been challenged by the respondent Nos.3 to 5 though remedy of an appeal is available under Rule 29 of the Rules of 1981. In the absence of any such appeal being preferred by the respondent Nos.3 to 5, there was no occasion for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to have examined the correctness of the action on the part of the petitioner of imposing a minor penalty. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 ought to have taken necessary cognizance of said resolution. In view of this, it would be necessary to direct the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to release the regular salary of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 but after deducting annual increment for the Academic Session 2015-2016.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the following order is passed:
ORDER The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall release the salary of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 after taking due cognizance of resolution No.2 dated 28-6-2015 passed by the petitioner society.
The salary from the month of February, 2016 and onwards shall ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 05:18:25 ::: wp4874.15.odt 5/5 be paid by taking cognizance of the said resolution.
Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
//MULEY//
::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 05:18:25 :::