ANIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned AGP waives service for respondents. Mr. D.B. Pawar waives for respondent no.4 and Mr. N.P. Patil waives service for respondent nos.5 to 9. With the consent of both the sides the Writ Petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) This is yet another Writ Petition taking objection to the transfer of the teachers from one school being run by the management to another school. The petitioners are assailing the order of transfer on the ground of it being prompted by mala fides and does not conform to the the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of service) Regulation Act , 1977.

(3.) The learned advocate Mr. Karad for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers and are serving with the respondent no.5 which runs the respondents no. 6 to 9 schools and have been discharging their services as such in the respondent no.6 school. Their services have been approved by the concerned Education Officers. Their services are regulated by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of service) Regulation Act , 1977 and the Rules framed thereunder of 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Rules). The petitioners had submitted a joint representation claiming salary and allowances as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Annoyed by such demand, the respondents 5 and 6 started harassing them. They were served with various show cause notices under some pretext or the other. Since the respondents 5 and 6 were not taking any decision the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.9921/2012. By the order dated 17.6.2012, the respondent no.2 Director of Education on the representations of the petitioners directed the respondent no.5 Society to pay the salary and allowances to the petitioners as per revised pay scale. Annoyed by such a direction, the respondent no.5 issued memorandum to the petitioners and other employees to which they had promptly replied. The petitioners and the other employees then preferred Writ Petitions No.1921/2014 and 7519/2016. The High Court allowed both the Writ Petitions on 20.3.2017 and directed the respondent no.5 Society to pay the salary to them in accordance with the law from April 2017 onwards and further directed it to clear the arrears within 6 months. Since thereafter the petitioners insisted for implementation of the directions of this Court. The respondent no.5 Society avoided to pay the arrears under the pretext that it was yet to receive arrears of fees from students running into lakhs of rupees. The respondent no.5 Society called upon the petitioners to discuss the issue and threatened of consequences if they failed to attend. The petitioners therefore preferred Contempt Petition No.550/2017. The respondent no.5 Society preferred Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court but failed to secure any interim relief. According to the learned advocate, annoyed by such steps, the respondent no.5 Society has vindictively transferred the petitioners and therefore the order is illegal and void.