KANHAIYYALAL Vs. BHARTIYA JAGRUTI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari learned Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Mohagaokar, learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4, Shri S.Y. Deopujari, learned Government Pleader for respondent No. 3 and Shri Amit Kinkhede and Shri Anup Gilda learned Advocates who rendered their valuable independent assistance to the Court to answer the question referred to us by the learned Single Judge (Coram: Shri Z.A. Haq, J.) in this matter.

(2.) For the purpose of this reference, it is not necessary for us to give a detailed narration of the facts of the case. We would, therefore, state here only those facts which would enable us to grasp the background of the issue underlying the question referred to us so that the attempt that we are making here for answering the question would be infused with clarity.

(3.) The petitioner was a permanent employee of respondent No. 1 Society and was rendering his services as Assistant Teacher at respondent No. 2-School. Respondent No. 1-Society, on receipt of a letter dtd. 11/6/2002 from respondent No. 3, the Education Officer, regarding withdrawal of the recognition of respondent No. 2-School, issued an order dtd. 13/6/2002 to the petitioner, thereby terminating the service of the petitioner with effect from the same date. According to the petitioner, he was not responsible for the withdrawal of recognition of respondent No. 2-School. The petitioner challenged his termination order before respondent No. 5-School Tribunal wherein, the petitioner got a partial success. The termination order issued to the petitioner was set aside by the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the Education Officer to include the name of petitioner in the list of surplus Teachers maintained by him. The judgment to this effect was rendered by the Tribunal on 27/6/2013. The petitioner who had by then already turned 58 years, it was on 26/6/2013, was to superannuate on 30/6/2013. This meant that the relief of inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the list of surplus Teachers was just like a decree on paper, a sort of moral victory rather than a real score over and enablement of fruits of the win. The petitioner expected that the Tribunal would appropriately consider the fast approaching date of his superannuation, just three days after and would appropriately mould the relief by granting continuity of service, back-wages, and other retirement benefits to the petitioner. As that did not happen, the petitioner knocked at the doors of this Court by filing the present petition.