RUPNAWAR DHANAJI DINKAR Vs. JAI BHAVANI EDUCATION SOCIETY
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Rupnawar Dhanaji Dinkar
Jai Bhavani Education Society And ...
Click here to view full judgement.
RIYAZ I.CHAGLA,J. -
(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the respondent nos.1 and 2 to pay the salary to the petitioner
from June, 1992 onwards.
According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a teacher in the school run by the respondent no.1-society on 13.6.1992. It is stated that the petitioner was not paid salary since his appointment. The school was entitled to receive 25 % grant-in- aid in the year 1997. It is the case of the petitioner that even after the school was brought on 100 % grant-in-aid in the year 2000, the petitioner was not paid the salary. It is stated that all the teachers of the school except the petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing No.1899 of 1999 and this Court had directed the respondent nos.1 and 2 to release the salary of the said teachers. It is stated that since the petitioner was not paid salary from the date of his appointment till the petition was filed, the petitioner has made a prayer for a direction against the respondent nos.1 and 2 to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner.
(2.) The respondent no.1-State of Maharashtra has denied the liability to pay the salary. It is stated that the school was brought
on 100 % grant-in-aid only in the year 2000 and a proposal for
appointment of the petitioner and payment of salary to him was
never submitted to the education authorities.
(3.) The respondent nos.1 and 2 have filed the affidavit-in- reply. It is stated in the affidavit-in-reply that the petitioner was
working purely on temporary basis from June, 1992 and though the
appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner on
30.5.1992 appointing him on purely temporary basis, he ceased to work with the respondent nos. 1 and 2 since May/September,1998.
It is stated that the writ petition for seeking the monetary benefit is
filed in the year 2003. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.1
and 2 states that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be
granted in the circumstances of the case especially when the
petitioner has ceased to work in the school since September, 1998.
It is stated that the claim for arrears of salary could be restricted only
for the period of three years before filing of the petition and since the
writ petition is filed on 18.11.2003, the petitioner could have made a
claim for salary only for the period from 18.11.2000. It is stated
that since the petitioner has ceased to work from September 1998,
the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.