LEELARAM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, SCHOOL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the Judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur in Appeal No. 137 of 1995, decided on 31-7-2012 and by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5945 of 2012, whereby the learned Single Judge has maintained the order passed by the School Tribunal, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. The appellant was appointed in respondent No. 2 School as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1992. His appointment was in accordance with law and was made after following due process of law. He worked on the said post till 30-4-1995. His services were terminated vide order dated 29-4-1995 issued by respondent No. 2 with effect from 30-4-1995. The appellant challenged the said termination by filing an appeal before the School Tribunal at Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'). The respondents contested the said appeal. During the pendency of the said appeal, the appellant got appointment as an Assistant Teacher in Zilla Parishad School in Balaghat District (Madhya Pradesh). He joined the said employment on 24-9-1998. The appellant, by seeking necessary amendment in the appeal filed before the School Tribunal, brought on record the said fact. Appeal No. 137 of 1995, so filed by the appellant, was decided by the School Tribunal at Nagpur vide order passed on 31-7-2012. The Tribunal partly allowed the said appeal. It quashed and set aside the impugned termination, being illegal and contrary to law, but did not grant the relief of reinstatement to the appellant and in lieu of that directed respondent No. 1 to pay the appellant Six months salary corresponding to the rate of 1995 as compensation. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the School Tribunal, the appellant preferred Writ Petition No. 5945 of 2012 before this Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said appeal vide order passed on 9-1-2013. The said Judgment is challenged in the present appeal.

(2.) Heard Shri Jibhkate, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 4. Nobody appeared for respondents 2 and 3.

(3.) Shri Jibhkate submitted that the School Tribunal has refused the relief of reinstatement to the appellant on erroneous grounds. The learned counsel submitted that passing of the period of 17 years after the order of termination cannot be a ground for refusing the relief of reinstatement when the order of termination is held to be wrongful and illegal. The learned counsel further submitted that the School Tribunal grossly erred in casting burden on the appellant to show that the post was still vacant or otherwise there was any vacancy in respondent No. 2 School, so that he could have been reinstated. The learned counsel further submitted that his existing employment with Zilla Parishad, Balaghat also cannot be a ground for rejecting the relief of reinstatement to the appellant. The learned counsel submitted that sufficient material was placed before the School Tribunal by the appellant to show what amount of salary is being presently received by the appellant and what amount could have been received to the appellant had he been continued in respondent No. 2 School. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant would suffer huge future losses and would also be losing the benefit of pension if he is not reinstated. The learned counsel submitted that without considering these facts, the Tribunal has passed the impugned order causing grave injustice to the appellant. The learned counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge also could not appreciate the plight of the appellant and maintained the order passed by the School Tribunal.