SUSHAMA SHARADCHANDRA BUDHISAGAR SOU Vs. PUNE VIDYARTHI GRAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Civil Revision Application, the petitioner Sou. Sushama Sharadchandra Budhisagar challenges an order dated 15th June, 1983, passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pune, below Exh. 26 in R.C.S. No. 1921 of 1981, rejecting her application to implead her as a necessary party in the said suit.

(2.) The short facts giving rise, to this Revision Application are that the petitioner was working as a full-time teacher in Maharashtra Vidyalaya at Pune, a School run by respondent No. 1 viz., Pune Vidyarthi Graha, Sadashiv Peth, Pune-411 030. She was retrenched on 27th July, 1979 from service on the alleged ground that the number of Divisions of Standard VIII and Standard X were reduced during the academic year 1979-80 on account of which her services were no longer required. This retrenchment order was said to have been made under Rule 77.4 of the Secondary Schools Code. The petitioner challenged the said order passed by respondent No. 1 before the Director of Education who upheld the objection of the petitioner and held that the retrenchment of the petitioner was illegal and directed respondent No. 1 to reinstate her forthwith with full back wages, with effect from 27th July, 1979. This order was communicated to respondent No. 1 and in pursuance thereof respondent No. 1 paid the arrears of salary due to the petitioner upto the end of October 1981 but refused to reinstate her. Thus from November 1981, the petitioner was not paid her salary. She, therefore, contacted respondent No. 1 as also respondent No. 3 i.e. The Director of Education, Pune, and the concerned officers of respondent No. 4 i.e. The Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune, with a request that her salary be paid to her. She wrote letters in that regard. One of her letters replied by the Director of Education, on 24th June 1982, saying that in view of an order passed in Civil Suit No. 1921 of 1981 by the learned trial Judge, the Government and the Education Department were unable to pay her salary. Thereafter the petitioner made inquires in the Court of the learned trial Judge, Pune, and came to know that respondent No. 1 had filed a suit against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for reliefs that the orders passed by the Director of Education directing reinstatement of the petitioner be declared null and void and that he permanently restrained from insisting upon the reinstatement of the petitioner. Further inquires made by the petitioner revealed that in the said suit an application for interim relief was made by respondent No. 1 which was granted in terms of prayer Clauses (C) and (D) inasmuch as the defendants in the said suit (i.e. respondent Nos. 2 to 4) were restrained from compelling respondent No. 1 (plaintiff in the said suit) to reinstate the present petitioner and one Sou. S.S. Nimbhavikar and were also be directed to refrain from not paying the grants to the school as threatened by them.

(3.) Thereafter petitioner made an application in the Court of the learned trial Judge praying that since her interests were directly involved in the suit, she may be impleaded as one of the defendants in the said suit. After hearing the parties the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not required to be impleaded as one of the parties for the purpose of effective and final adjudication of the rights of the parties in the suit and that no injunction was granted directing respondent No. 1 to restrain from making payment to the petitioner. He accordingly rejected the petitioners application by an order dated 15-6-1983 which is impugned herein in this Revision Application.