1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5316 OF 2008 President/Secretary, Shri Yashwant Madhyamik Vidya Mandir & Ors ...Petitioners Versus Premchand s/o Gopichand Wankhede & Ors ...Respondents ..... Mr. P.B. Patil, advocate for the petitioners Mr. Sanjay Kolhare, advocate for respondent No. 1 ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 29TH AUGUST, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 This writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.3.2008 passed by the Grievance Committee of Shikshan Sevak, at Aurangabad, in appeal No. 202 of 2004, directing the petitioners to make payment of salary of the respondent No.1 from the date of his appointment i.e. from 18.1.2002 till 2.2.2004 as Shikshan Sevak @ Rs.4000/- p.m. from the own funds. It is not necessary to refer to the facts of the case, however, suffice it to say that the present respondent filed appeal No. 202 of 2 2004 before the President, Grievance Committee for entertaining the complaint of Shikshan Sevak Mumbai, Camp at Aurangabad for following reliefs:- A. This appeal may kindly be allowed. B. Record and proceeding may be called for perusal. C. By way of appropriate orders or directions, the Respondents may be directed to allow the appellant to sign on muster roll and not to terminate from the service. D. By way of appropriate orders or directions the Respondents may be directed to pay the regular salary of Rs.4,000/- per month @ 18% per annum from the date of appointment i.e. from 16.1.2002 as per Govt. Resolution dated 13.10.2000 issued by Govt. of Maharashtra. E. Any other just and equitable relief may be granted in favour of the appellant. 2 Subsequently, the amendment was brought to the appeal and the prayer was made to the effect that the termination of services of the appellant be set aside. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the grounds taken in the petition and submitted that, two 3 appointment orders were issued to the respondent herein. The appointment of the respondent No.1 was not valid appointment and ultimately the Grievance Committee has not entertained the prayer of the respondent No.1 for reinstatement and the declined to entertain the prayer for setting aside the termination order. According to the learned counsel, the committee had no jurisdiction to give directions to the petitioner to make payment of salary of honorarium of the appellant from the date of his appointment. Learned counsel invited my attention to the un-reported judgment of this Court in the case of Principal – Our Lady of Salvation High School Vs. Ms. Rashmi Upadhyay and Ors. Writ petition No. 8313 of 2008 (Appellate Side Bombay) and in view of that the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal is not vested in the School Tribunal w.e.f. 30.4.2007 and therefore, the committee was not competent to entertain the appeal filed by the respondent herein. The counsel therefore, prayed that the petition deserves to be allowed on this ground alone. 4 The counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted that if the original prayers in the appeal are perused, no prayer was made for setting aside the termination order or for reinstatement and therefore, the appeal was competent and Grievance committee only given direction to the petitioner to pay salary for the period for which the respondent No.1 has rendered services with the petitioner institution. According to the learned counsel, the appeal provided to 4 the School Tribunal is only in respect of the order of termination and so far as other grievances of the respondent No.1 are concerned, the committee was competent to decide the issue. Learned counsel further submitted that this point is not taken by the petitioner either before the Grievance Committee or in the writ petition, and therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to agitate the said point here now. 5 Learned counsel has invited my attention to the order passed Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Bhiraji Sawant Vs. State of Maharashtra, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. (s) 14013 of 2003 and submitted that in that case also the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the respondent institute to pay salary of the petitioner therein for the period for which she rendered the services. Learned counsel therefore, submits that the directions given by the committee are only to pay honorarium of Rs.4000/- p.m. for the period for which the respondent No.1 has worked with the petitioner institution therefore, the writ petition is devoid of any merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6 After hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and learned A.G.P. for the respondent No.2, I am of the considered view that the order passed by the Grievance Committee directing the petitioner to make payment of salary or honorarium of respondent No.1 from the date of his 5 appointment i.e. 18.1.2002 till 2.2.2004 as Shikshan Sevak @ Rs. 4000/- p.m. from their own funds cannot be faulted with. 7 Though, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to contend that now appeal is provided before the School Tribunal and committee was not competent to entertain the appeal, cannot be accepted in view of no specific pleading either before the Grievance Committee or before this Court in writ petition. The petitioner has subjected to the jurisdiction of the Grievance committee and did not raise this point. On careful perusal of the memo of the petition, there is no single word about the jurisdiction of the grievance committee or before this Court in writ petition, other side has no opportunity to meet with this point. The petitioners have subjected to the jurisdiction of the grievance committee and did not raise any objection. 8 Apart from the above, as rightly contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the original prayers which were made in the appeal before the committee in 2004 were only for directions for the salary and to direct the petitioners to allow respondent to sign the muster role. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 is also right in contending that only in case of termination, the challenge to the termination order, appeal is competent before the School Tribunal. 9 It is also to be appreciated in the facts and circumstances of this 6 case that it is an admitted position that the respondent No.1 herein has actually worked from 18.1.2002 to 2.2.2004 and having been worked for the said period, to deprive him from even getting salary/honorarium of Rs.4000/- on the ground that his appeal was not competent before the grievance committee, would be hyper technical view depriving the person from his salary for rendering services as back as in 2002-2004. 10 Viewed from any angle and having been subjected to the jurisdiction of the committee, it is not open for the petitioner to deprive the respondent No.1 from getting salary for the period for which he actually has worked. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) rlj/