SURYAKANT B PATHAK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the short point which has surfaced for consideration and adjudication is, as to whether the rejection of the application of the petitioner by the Tribunal, by its order dated 18/10/1988, in an Application No.78 of 1987, holding that the wife of the petitioner was a teacher, and not the petitioner and it was, therefore, held by the Tribunal that, the application was without jurisdiction.

(2.) This decision is questioned in this petition, on the ground that the impugned order is illegal, and the Tribunal was competent to consider and decide the dispute raised before it by the husband of the deceased teacher, in relation to the service benefits in terms of money, due and payable to the deceased wife, who was a teacher.

(3.) Of course, the definition of teacher in Chapter VII-B of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1986 would go to show that, a teacher means a teacher of recognized private primary school. The deceased wife - Tarla was a school teacher in the services of respondent. She died, leaving petitioner husband, who applied for the gratuity and other benefits, due and payable to the deceased wife, as the heir and legal representative of the deceased wife. Despite several attempts and requests, the school management and trustees did not respond favourably, and failed to make payment of the benefits to the petitioner - husband. Even the letter was not replied by the respondent - authority.