CHHATRAPATI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA AKOT Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER SCHIOOL TRIBUNAL AMRAVATI AND AURANGABAD DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Writ Petition, the petitioners/employers challenged the judgment dated 17-2-1992 delivered by the respondent No. 1 school Tribunal. The respondent No. 2 Employee was initially appointed in the year 1985-86 and his appointment was approved by the Education Officer on 24-9-1985. In 1986-87 the respondent No. 2 was appointed in Junior College to teach Mathematics and in 1987-88 he was again given fresh appointment to teach mathematics to junior college. It appears that the Deputy Director of Education however, pointed out that on 24-8-1987 that the post occupied by the respondent no. 2 was reserved for backward class candidate and hence he was given approval only for particular session i. e. 1986-87 and 1987-88. The approval for the session 1987-88 was given by communication dated 15-3-1988. In view of this approval the petitioners terminated the respondent No. 2 by order dated 2-4-1988. This was challenged by the respondent No. 2 by filing appeal on 7-7-1989. There was delay in filing appeal and said delay has been condoned by the School tribunal and thereafter, the appeal came to be registered on 30-1-1990. The school Tribunal has allowed that appeal on 17-2-1992 and directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent No. 2 as probationer within 40 days and also directed them to pay him pay and allowances from the date of termination till his reinstatement within a period of three months. The respondent No. 2 however, did not report for duty and he forwarded a communication dated 13-5-1992 informing that he is in service of Municipal Council, Khamgaon as administrative Officer (Education) , from 13-7-1990. He states that he wanted to continue as Administrative Officer and was not interested in joining the duties with the petitioners. He further requested the management to finalize and arrange for payment of arrears of his salary from 1-5-1988 till 12-7-1990. The management thereafter forwarded a letter to him and informed him to comply with the judgment of the School Tribunal and report for duties immediately. A copy of this communication was also forwarded to the Deputy Director of education and Education Officer. This communication has been replied to by fhe respondent No. 2 and in the meanwhile on 1-12-1992 the Deputy Director of education issued letter to petitioners to arrange for payment of arrears of salary to respondent No. 2. There was some correspondence between the parties in this respect and ultimately on 14-10-1993 the Education Officer (Secondary) i. e. the respondent No. 3 before this Court deducted amount of Rs. 78,988/- from the grants payable to the petitioner and paid the said amount to the respondent No. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court in this background, contending that there could not have been any such deduction and that the respondent No. 2 was not eligible to claim any arrears.

(2.) I have heard Advocate S. P. Palshikar, for petitioners, Advocate Qazi, for respondent No. 2 and learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4.

(3.) Advocate Palshikar, has argued that the School Tribunal directed reinstatement in favour of the respondent No. 2 and ordered management to pay him his arrears of salary from the date of termination till his reinstatement. He contends that as the respondent No. 2 never reported for work and never joined the duties, the judgment of the School Tribunal did not come into force at all and the respondent No. 2 therefore is not eligible to claim any amount on account of arrears of salary or backwages. He invites attention to the letter dt. 13-5-1992 forwarded by the respondent No. 2 in which the respondent No. 2 has expressly stated that he has been appointed as Administrative Officer from 13-7-1990 and that he was not interested in joining back the services with the petitioner. He contends that as the respondent No. 2 never joined, there was no question of reinstatement and therefore, there is no question of paying any arrears from the date of termination till reinstatement. Though this position was pointed out to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, they have unilaterally effected the deductions of huge amount payable to the petitioner and the same had been made over to the respondent No. 2 illegally. He therefore states that the said amount should be directed to be refunded to the present petitioners by quashing and setting aside the communication dated 14-10-1993. He also states that the judgment dated 17-2-1992 may also be quashed and set aside.