ASHA ANIL PATIL Vs. MADAN RAJARAM BAGWE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this petition impugns the orders/letter dated 17th April 1995 whereby the petitioner claim for salary has been rejected.

(2.) A brief narration of facts may be necessary to dispose off this petition. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the School run by respondent No. 2 on 14th September, 1974. The petitioner was thereafter appointed as Head Mistress on 1st July 1977. Some allegations came to be made against the petitioner pursuant to which the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court. The Court refused stay. The respondent No. 2 held an enquiry in respect of the charges against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty. On 26th July 1986 the petitioner was dismissed from service based on the said enquiry report. An appeal was filed by the petitioner. The Additional Municipal Commissioner further remanded the appeal for enquiry to the Education Officer on 10th October, 1988. The Education Officer exonerated the petitioner of all the charges and directed reinstatement with full back wages. Respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal which was rejected. On 28th September, 1989 another order of dismissal came to be passed in respect of other charges. Petitioner challenged the same by a writ petition which was dismissed by directing the petitioner to resort to the remedy available under Rule 20 of the Grant-in-Aid Code. On appeal being filed, the order of dismissal was quashed and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated as Head Mistress with full back wages. The said order came to be challenged by respondent No. 2 by writ petition. Stay was refused. The petitioner was thereafter asked to join as Assistant Teacher and not as Head Mistress. In the meantime respondent No. 2 had also preferred an appeal which was allowed. The petitioner preferred a petition against the said order. The various petitions came up for hearing. In Writ Petition No. 3206 of 1989 filed by respondent No. 2 and another, the petition was disposed off in terms of the Minutes of Order dated 17th August, 1993. The said Minutes of Order were not signed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The relevant clauses of the Minutes of the Order are as under :---"

(3.) THE petitioners application which was before the respondent No. 3 came to be disposed off by order dated 17th April 1995. The respondent No. 3 held that neither the petitioner nor the respondent No. 2 society are entitled for any payment of arrears of salaries and dues under the Grant-in-Aid Code and hence their claim was rejected. While disposing off the said application, respondent No. 3 was also pleased to observe as under :