Smt. Savitri Pushpashil Patel vs The President, Shri Ganesh Shikshan ... on 28 October, 2021
17. We may note that the learned Single Judge in Education Society,
Yavatmal vs. Narayan Govindrao Deshpande and ors. 2005(4) Mh.L.J. 417 has
held that Section 11(3) of the Act of 1977 is an independent provision and
said sub-section does not require that the School Tribunal must exercise
power to make recommendation to State Government about deduction from
the grant only while deciding the appeal and not thereafter. It was held that
the School Tribunal could make a recommendation contemplated by Section
11(3) at any time. The argument that direction under Section 11(3) could be
given only while deciding the appeal finally and not thereafter or that the
School Tribunal lost its power to pass such order after deciding the appeal
finally was turned down. In the said case the order of reversion was
challenged by the Head Master and the School Tribunal had dismissed the
appeal under Section 9 of the Act of 1977. The writ petition filed by the
employee was allowed on 08/03/1990 and after setting aside the order of
reversion, the employee was restored to the post of Head Master with
continuity of service and all back-wages. Since this order was not complied
::: Uploaded on - 28/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2021 07:49:19 :::
216-LPA-5-13 24/25
with entirely a contempt petition was filed in this Court. However since
there was a genuine dispute as regards the effect of the order passed by this
Court it was held that it was not a case of deliberate non-compliance. Liberty
was given to the employee to raise dispute before an appropriate forum.
Thereafter the employee filed an application under Section 11(3) and 13 of
the Act of 1977 claiming the balance amount of salary. The School Tribunal
accordingly directed the Management to pay the arrears of salary and in
default recommended to the State Government to deduct an equal amount
from the grant due and payable to the Management and to pay the same to
the employee.