SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL Vs. SARJERAO RAMCHANDRA JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the judgment and order rendered by the School Tribunal on 1/9/1998 thereby allowing Appeal No.106 of 1995. The order of otherwise termination dated 11/7/1995 was declared null and void and was set aside and the respondent no.1 - appellant-teacher was directed to be reinstated with full backwages till his reinstatement. While granting Rule on 5/2/1999 the petitioners had shown their willingness to reinstate the appellant and on that condition of reinstatement within one week, the order of backwages was stayed. The appellant is present today in the Court and states that he has been reinstated as per the undertaking furnished before this Court and as at present he is getting all his salary and he has also been granted seniority from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 1/7/19991. Therefore, the only issue required to be considered is whether the order of payment of full backwages calls for any interference in this petition.

(2.) The petitioner no.1 - Mandal runs more than one secondary schools. In the year 1989-90 the petitioner no.2 - school was started by opening the 8th standard and it was on non-grant basis. The appellant had passed his B.Sc., B.Ed. and was, therefore, appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the said school by order dated 1/7/1991 in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600. He was continued in the academic years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95. In the academic year 1995-96 the petitioner no.2 - school became fully aided and in the mean while from 1/6/1993 the appellant was appointed as the acting Head of the petitioner no.2 - school. In the academic year 1994-95 the petitioner no.1 - Society started another secondary school by name Vijaysingh Mohite Patil Vidyalaya, Kolegaon and by order dated 10/6/1995 he was transferred to the said new school which was unaided. He did not report at the transferred placed and an order was issued on 11/7/1995 informing him that under Rule 16(2) of the MEPS Rules, 1981 his service was terminated on account of abandonment. The teacher, therefore, filed Appeal No.106 of 1995.

(3.) The present petitioners had appeared before the School Tribunal and claimed that the termination order was legal and it could not be strictly called as an order of termination. As per the management the appellant had himself abandoned the employment and, therefore, there was no question of termination of service. They further claimed that in any case he was a temporary employee and his services came to an end because of his continued absence from duty.