:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6002 OF 2006 1. The Lok Jagruti Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, through its Secretary Vihitgaon, Deolali, Nashik Road, Dist. Nashik. 2. The Head Master, New English School, Vihitgaon-Deolali, Nashik Road, Dist. Nashik ..Petitioners Vs. 1. Rajendra Damu Mali since deceased through LRs. 1(a) Damu Ramchandra Mali 1(b) Gangubai Damu Mali Both residing at Nangardeola Tal. Pachora, Dist.Jalgaon. 2. Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Division, Nashik. 3. The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Nashik. 4. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondents Mr. M.A. Patil for the petitioners. Mr. Alok Gupta i/by Mr. Mihir Desai for respondent nos.1(a) and 1(b). Mr. S.K. Chinchalikar, AGP for respondent nos.2 to 4. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : March 04, 2008. Date : March 04, 2008. Date : March 04, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Patil the learned counsel for the :2: petitioners. This petition is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 9/8/2004 rendered by the School Tribunal at Nashik thereby allowing Appeal No. 35 of 1999 filed by the deceased-respondent. 2. The petition has been filed on or about 18/8/2006 for the first time and the impugned Judgment and Order is dated 9/8/2004, as noted earlier. That means for a period of two years the petitioners kept quiet and surprisingly no explanation has been furnished in the petition memo for this inordinate delay and inaction on the part of the petitioners. On this ground alone the petition could be dismissed. 3. However, we may proceed on merits and more so because the petitioners along with Shri S.R. Pardeshi, Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nashik must be dealt with as per law. The appellant-teacher was issued the appointment order on 20/6/1994 against a permanent clear vacancy and, therefore, he was appointed on probation. He possessed the requisite qualification of B.A. B.Ed. The probationary period was of two years. Proposal :3: for approval was submitted by the management on 12/8/1995 to respondent no.4. However, on 15/9/1995 the present petitioner nos.1 and 2 did not allow him to sign the muster roll and did not allow him to work in the school. Consequently, he approached the School Tribunal and filed Appeal No. 40 of 1995 challenging the oral termination of service. The Education Officer called all the parties in his office for meeting but the appellant did not receive any intimation and, therefore, he submitted a representation on 18/3/1996 to the Education Officer. In the meanwhile the Head Master by his letter dated 15/3/1996 and copy of which was placed before the School Tribunal called upon him to report for duty on 18/3/1996 and when he reported for duty on that day, he was not allowed to enter the school premises. On 24/6/1996 the appellant approached the Superintendent of Police at Jalgaon and registered a complaint against the present petitioner nos.1 and 2 as he was threatened to withdraw the appeal from the School Tribunal or face the consequences. On 28/6/1996 when he was present in the School Tribunal premises at Nashik, as per the appellant, he was picked up by the :4: goondas hired by the management, who took out deadly weapons and threatened him of his life. He was picked up in the vehicle brought by the goondas and was taken to the office of the Education Officer along with a resignation which was forcibly obtained from him. He was made to disclose to the Education Officer that he had resigned voluntarily and the said letter was signed by the Education Officer, Deputy Education Officer and two others present there as witnesses. Appellant made a representation to the Education Officer immediately thereafter and submitted that the resignation was accepted under force, violence and threats of intimidation and the same should not be acted upon. He was running from pillar to post for about three years and finally filed Appeal No. 35 of 1999. The said appeal has been allowed by the School Tribunal by recording a finding that the resignation was obtained by force and it was not a resignation tendered voluntarily and more so because the procedure laid down under the M.E.P.S. Rules 1981 to submit resignation was not followed. There was no reason for the school teacher to approach the Education Officer along with the representative of the management and :5: confess before him that he had voluntarily resigned and this went to show that the resignation was stage-managed and a farce was made out that the appellant had voluntarily resigned from the post of Assistant Teacher. There was no evidence placed before the School Tribunal to counter the allegations made by the appellant and the Education Officer had filed reply admitting that on 12/6/1995 he had received a proposal from the petitioners for granting approval to the appointment of the appellant and the same was returned on 13/7/1995 for compliances. After the compliances the proposal was resubmitted to his office vide letter dated 8/11/1995 deleting the name of the appellant and, therefore, the appellant had submitted a representation. The Deputy Education Officer was sent for enquiry on 18/12/1995 and he had submitted his report as well. The contention of the respondent no.4 that he had rejected the proposal for granting approval to the appointment of the appellant was also discarded by the School Tribunal. Section 7 of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977 lays down the procedure for tendering resignation by an employee in the private school read with Rule 40 of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981. :6: The Tribunal held that the correspondence between the appellant and the Deputy Director of Education as well as the Education Officer went to show that without going by the procedure laid down under the Act and the Rules for tendering resignation from service, the Education Officer as well as the present petitioners had illegally obtained the resignation and it was acted upon. It was under these circumstances the School Tribunal recorded a finding that it was a case of otherwise termination from service and the said termination was illegal. 4. After the impugned Judgment and Order was rendered by the School Tribunal on 9/8/2004, the appellant died on 28/9/2004 and his LRs have been brought on record. Therefore, as of now, the question of reinstatement of the appellant does not arise. The School Tribunal by the impugned order has directed reinstatement with full backwages. The said order was not complied with within the stipulated period of 40 days and, therefore, Advocate’s notice dated 2/3/2006 was issued by the LRs of the appellant to the petitioners calling upon them to pay an amount of :7: Rs.5,92,721 towards the arrears of backwages with interest at the rate of 18% per annum till the realisation of the said amount. 5. Hence, there is no case made out to cause interference in the impugned order and this petition must fail at the threshold. The same is hereby rejected summarily. 6. Needless to mention that the petitioners shall pay to the LRs of the appellant the amount of backwages within a period of four weeks from today with simple interest at 6% p.a. and this amount shall not be claimed by way of salary grants from the State Government. 7. A copy of this order along with the impugned judgment and order rendered by the School Tribunal shall be forwarded by the learned AGP to the Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Region, Nashik so as to reach him within two weeks from today. The Deputy Director of Education, on receipt of these orders, shall caution Shri S.R. Pardeshi (then Education :8: Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nashik) so that he does not become a party to such illegal acts in future. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)