Bombay High Court
Shivtej Krida Va Shikshan Mandal Thr. ... vs Nilima Shivaji Jadhav And Anr on 21 March, 2022
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
20-WP-3178-2022 with IA(St.)-6986-2022.doc
BDP-SPS-TAC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BHARAT
DASHARATH
PANDIT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
BHARAT
WRIT PETITION NO.3178 OF 2022
DASHARATH
PANDIT
Date: 2022.03.21
16:54:38 +0530
ALONG WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.6986 OF 2022
Shivtej Krida Va Shikshan Mandal,
Through its Secretary Sagar M. Tapkir & Anr. ....Petitioners
V/s.
Nilima Shivaji Jadhav and Anr. ....Respondents
----
Mr. Atul Damle, Sr. Advocate, i/by Mr. Prashant P. More, for the
Petitioners.
Mr. Shirish V. Pitre for Respondent No.1.
Mr. A.P. Vanarase, AGP for Respondent No.2-State.
----
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE : MARCH 21, 2022
P.C.:-
1] Heard Mr. Damle, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner.
2] Impugned in the Petition is an order passed below Exhibit-72 in
Special Darkhast No.24 of 2014 and Exhibit-84. The aforesaid execution is arising out of the judgment and order delivered by School Tribunal in Appeal No.51 of 1999 initiated by Respondent No.1.
3] Vide order impugned, objections preferred by the Petitioner 1/3 20-WP-3178-2022 with IA(St.)-6986-2022.doc under the provisions of Section 47 read with Order 21 Rule 4 sub-rule (1) of CPC and Section 151 of CPC came to be rejected.
4] I am informed that in compliance with the order of School Tribunal of which execution is sought, Respondent No.1 who was declared surplus, was already absorbed in third school by different Management and as such order to the extent of reinstatement is complied with.
5] Parties to the Petition are now agitating on the issue of payment of back-wages. Mr. Damle, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner would urge that since the Executing Court cannot go beyond decree and decree contemplates a clause whereby amount of back-wages to be paid to Respondent No.1 from the non-salary grant to be receivable, Petitioner ought not to have been called in execution proceedings for not honouring the decree. He would further submit that there is no adjudication on the back-wages payable to Respondent No.1 and that being so, order of detention of the Petitioner/liability fastened on the Petitioner is not justified.
6] Both the parties are in agreement that amount as was ordered by the Executing Court is already secured, as a cheque to that effect is already submitted in the court below.
7] In the aforesaid background, having regard to the fact that the exact amount payable to Respondent No.1 towards back-wages is not 2/3 20-WP-3178-2022 with IA(St.)-6986-2022.doc adjudicated at the behest of any of the parties, it will be appropriate to call upon the Respondent-Education Officer to file his affidavit depicting total liability/quantum of back-wages payable to Respondent No.1 by the Petitioner. Let such affidavit, in any case, be placed before this Court on or before 2/4/2022.
8] Matter to come up for consideration on 5/4/2022. Status quo as of today is directed to be continued till the next date. To be heard with Contempt Petition No.263 of 2014.
( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. ) 3/3