1 wp2355-11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2355 OF 2011 Samatanagar Galedharak Mahasangh and Samata Balakmandir Shikshan Sanstha Yerawada, Pune & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Smt.Suvarna Ramchandra Kamble and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Vinod Tayade with Chandrakant Bidkar for petitioners Mr.Sanjeev Rairikar for respondent No.3 Mr.P.G.Sawant “B” Panel Counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 5th September 2011. P.C.: 1] The petitioner Management has challenged the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal on 20th January 2010 in Appeal No.34 of 2009. That appeal was preferred by the first respondent to this petition challenging the termination of her service with effect from 22nd June 2009 as a Teacher in the Primary School. 2 wp2355-11.doc 2] When this petition was placed for admission, several contentions have been raised by the petitioner management which is represented by its President and particularly that no compensation amount could have been awarded when the Tribunal has answered Point Nos.I and II in the negative. 3] In other words, if the appointment of the teacher was not made in clear and permanent post and that the teacher had not become permanent employee, the ultimate reliefs could not have been granted. 4] However, in the affidavit filed by the first respondent teacher, serious allegation is made that the petitioner has suppressed material facts from this Court. It is pointed out that the teacher - first respondent to this petition, preferred Writ Petition No.2081 of 2009 which was placed before the Division Bench of this Court on 16th December 2009. An order was made thereon in the following terms:- “(i) The petitioner shall within a period of four 3 wp2355-11.doc weeks from today shall make an application to respondent No.4 giving all details about her appointment, her work, the amount she has received per month as salary and about the amount to which she is entitled as per law. Before filing that application before respondent No.4, the petitioner shall serve copy thereof on respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The management thereafter, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the application of the petitioner, shall submit its reply before the Education Officer. Education Officer thereafter after granting an opportunity of being heard to both sides make an order determining how much amount is payable by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the petitioner. The amount, as determined, shall be paid by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 subject to its right to challenge validity of that order. If according to the management it is entitled to reimbursement of the salary grant from the school Board, the Management shall be at liberty to make such a claim for reimbursement. If such a claim is made, it shall also be decided in accordance with law. (ii) Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.” 5] This order was made by the Division Bench on the basis that if the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in recognised school, she is entitled to salary as per the MEPS Act and Rules framed thereunder. In pursuance of the order and directions of the Division Bench the first respondent before this Court made necessary application and on 29th September 2010 an order was passed by the 4 wp2355-11.doc Shikshan Pramukh Pune Municipal Corporation directing that since the first respondent has worked for some time and period she is entitled to a salary and that be paid within 30 days of the order of the said Authority. In other words for the period from 1999 to 2009 the differential wages were directed to be paid. 6] It is then contended by Mr.Tayade appearing for first respondent as also Mr.Rairikar appearing for respondent No.3, Administrative Officer, Education Department, Municipal Corporation of Pune that the order passed on 29th September 2010 was not complied with and, therefore, the first respondent to this petition was compelled to institute another petition being W.P.1989 of 2011. That petition was disposed of on 1st July 2011 by the Division Bench of this Court directing that appropriate steps be taken to ensure that this order is complied with, including by recovery as arrears of land revenue from the management. 7] It is pertinent to note that to all these proceedings, the petitioner before me is party. That after hearing the petitioner all these orders 5 wp2355-11.doc have been passed; that none of these orders of the Division Bench of this Court have been challenged in higher court nor have they been set aside. If not on the date of filing of this petition, at least on the date on which it is placed for admission that it was the duly of the petitioner to have pointed out all these facts. It is pertinent to note that when the order passed on the earlier petition was made, viz., on 16th December 2009, the School Tribunal had not made its final orders. Therefore, not only before the School Tribunal but when this petition was filed in this Court on 3rd February 2011, the petitioner management has suppressed the fact of the Division Bench deciding identical controversy and issuing directions in tune and in furtherance of the order of Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal. Thus, by these acts the petitioner – management it is precluded from raising any challenge to the order of the Presiding Officer. It was permissible for the management to have pointed out to the Division Bench that the order was not in accordance with law. However, having taken its chance before the Division Bench and yet not complying with the orders of Authorities, issued in furtherance of the directions of the Division Bench, that this petition is 6 wp2355-11.doc being pursued. By taking serious view of the conduct of the petitioner in suppresing the relevant and material facts, this petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- to be paid to first respondent – Teacher. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)