Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bombay High Court

Smt. Madhuri Rameshrao Dupkewar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 11 February, 2022

Author: Amit Borkar

Bench: Nitin Jamdar, Amit Borkar

                              Agk                               1                        6-WP-6456-21.doc


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                             CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6456 OF 2021

                              Smt. Madhuri Rameshrao Dupkewar                        ...Petitioner
                                   Vs.
                              The State of Maharashtra and Ors.                      ...Respondents


                              Mr. Y.B. Lengare, for the Petitioner.
                              Mr. Ashish P. Pawar, for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
                              Mrs. S.S. Bhende, AGP, for the Respondents-State.


                                                        CORAM       : NITIN JAMDAR &
                                                                      AMIT BORKAR, JJ.

                                                        DATED       : 11 FEBRUARY 2022.
                                                                      (Through Video Conferencing)

                              P. C. :

On 14 January 2022 following order was passed:

" The Petitioner challenges the rejection of grant of approval to the Petitioner. The petition is circulated on the ground that there is an extreme urgency since salary is not being paid. The primary responsibility of payment of salary irrespective of the grant is upon the Respondent -

Management. Issue notice to the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI to show cause as to why they should not be directed to KULKARNI Date:

2022.02.11 13:09:35 +0530 deposit the arrears claimed by the Petitioner towards the salary. The notice is made returnable on 11 February 2022."

Agk 2 6-WP-6456-21.doc

2. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have appeared. Reply affidavit is filed.

As regard the order dated 14 January 2022, it is stated that the institution is charitable, has no other source of income and also not charging any fees from the students. On these grounds, the Respondent

- Management, who is primarily responsible to pay its employees, refuses to pay any amount to the Petitioner at present. Almost every educational institute is either run by a Trust or a Society and, therefore, merely because it is a charitable trust that alone cannot be a ground for non-payment of salary to its teachers.

3. As regard the claim of the Management against the Government for aid is concerned, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are not the Petitioners nor have they filed any independent petition in that regard. Therefore, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 cannot escape their liability to pay the Petitioner. We direct the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to deposit 50% of the dues in this Court within period of three weeks from today and only after the deposit, request of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to transpose themselves as Petitioners would be considered.

4. Stand over to 11 March 2022.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)                                 ( NITIN JAMDAR, J.)