HAUSABAI BABURAO KALE Vs. EXECUTIVE PRESIDENT, SHAIKSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition which is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner who is an illiterate widow is praying for appropriate writ/order of this Court against the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to continue to give grant-in-aid to the Respondent No.1 Institution towards the salary of the Petitioner or in the alternative for a direction against the Respondent No.1 to give the salary of the Petitioner and all other dues. The Petitioner was appointed as a Peon in year 1959 in Shri Krishna Prathamik Shala of the Respondent No.1 Society, which is running several educational institutions in Pune. The said School is recognised Primary School and receives grant-in-aid from the State Government through the School Board of the Pune Municipal Corporation. It is the Petitioner's case that the Petitioner has been in continuous service of the School right from 1959. In 1974, an attempt was made by the Respondent No.1 to terminate the services of the Petitioner but due to the efforts made by the Deputy Director of Education, the Petitioner was continued. Although, the Respondent No.1 Society had been receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government which included salary of the Petitioner also, only for the first time in 1981, the Respondent No.2 informed the Society that the salary amount payable to the Petitioner would not be admissible by way of grant-in-aid. Therefore, the Respondent No.1 issued notice on the Petitioner informing her that since the management was not to receive grant-in-aid towards her salary, the Petitioner's services could not be continued. Ultimately, despite several letters by the Petitioner, an order of termination was passed on 29th April 1983 by the Respondent No.1 against which an Appeal was preferred by the Petitioner before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune. By its order dated 5th September 1985, the Appeal was allowed by the School Tribunal and the order of termination was set aside the Respondent No.1 was directed to reinstate the Petitioner within a period of two months from the date of the order. There was a further order of payment of arrears and emoluments to the Petitioner. The Petitioner was thereafter reinstated in service from the month of November 1985, however, despite the order of the Tribunal regarding the payment of arrears and emoluments, the Petitioner was not paid the same. In these circumstances, the Petitioner was compelled to file Miscellaneous Application under Section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act 1977 and the School Tribunal by its order the judgment dated 11th April 1986 allowed the said Miscellaneous Application and directed payment of arrears and emoluments in the three equal instalments. Despite this further order, nothing was paid to the Petitioner except when an application for contempt was moved by the Petitioner, an amount of Rs.5,000.00 was paid towards the back wages. After the reinstatement however, the Petitioner has been paid at the rate of Rs.300.00 p.m. since November 1985 onwards. The Petitioner gets only that amount per month as a consolidated salary. In these circumstances, the present writ Petition is preferred. On behalf of the State of Maharashtra, one Maruti Narayan Kamble, Assistant Secretary, Education and Employment Department, Government of Maharashtra has filed an affidavit. It is inter alia stated therein that under Rule 115(3)(b) of the Bombay Primary Education Rules 1949, the post of the Petitioner cannot be sanctioned and hence the question of payment of any grant towards the salary of the Petitioner by the authorities does not arise. It is further stated that in these circumstances, the educational institution itself has to bear the same and cannot be reimbursed by the authorities. Similar stand is taken in the affidavit filed by one Raghunath Pandharinath Gurao, Junior Administrative Officer of the Office of the Deputy Director of Education, Pune Region, Pune. Significantly, as far as the Respondent No.1 is concerned, neither any affidavit in reply is filed nor anyone is appearing. In fact, attempts to serve to the Society herein failed because service was not accepted by the Society as a result when the order was passed by this Court on 24th July 1996, as this Court wanted to adjourn the matter and give a last opportunity, direction was given to serve the Respondent No.1. Accordingly, the Respondent No.1 has been served and the acknowledgment is received by the registry.

(2.) SHRI Langote, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that the fact that the Petitioner was in the employment of the Respondent No.1 and has been continuously working for all these years cannot be denied. In fact, there are at least three orders passed by the School Tribunal in her favour. It was his submission that the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot now be allowed to take a stand that since the rules do not permit, the salary payable to the Petitioner cannot come from the grant-in-aid received by the School. Shri Langote lastly submitted that in any view of the matter, the Respondent No.1 cannot turn around and say that since the salary is not reimbursed under the grant-in-aid, the Respondent No.1 Society is not liable to pay the Petitioner.

(3.) IN the above circumstances, the following order is passed :- Rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (c) and (d) of the Writ Petition. The Respondent No.1 is directed to pay all the arrears of salary of the Petitioner on or before 30th November 1996. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Certified copy expedited.