WP/3657/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3657 OF 2010 Dr.Pratima Anant Sathe ... Petitioner V/s. The Secretary Maharashtra Education Society, Pune & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.A.V. Anturkar i/b S.B. Deshmukh for Petitioner Mr.Kalyani Pathak for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: JANUARY 14, 2011 P.C.: 1. The order impugned in this petition has been passed by the School Tribunal on 19.1.2010 in Miscellaneous Application No.22 of 2007. By this order, the application has been dismissed as the Tribunal. It was of the opinion that the respondent being an unaided school, the government resolution, which the petitioner claimed entitled her to certain allowances, was not applicable. The facts in brief in the present petition are as follows: The services of the petitioner were terminated while she was working as an Assistant Teacher with the respondent Management. The appeal filed by the petitioner under the The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, `MEPS Act') challenging the order of termination was WP/3657/2010 : 2 : allowed by the School Tribunal. The respondent Management complied with the order and the Petitioner was reinstated in service. Her services were terminated once again on the basis of certain complaints received against her. The appeal which was filed by the petitioner under the MEPS Act was allowed and the petitioner was granted relief in that appeal. Aggrieved by that order, the respondent Management challenged the order of the School Tribunal in Writ Petition No.1794 of 2000. The writ petition was dismissed on 13.2.2003. The Petitioner was then reinstated. However, her backwages and other consequential benefits were not paid. Therefore she filed Contempt Petition No.178 of 2003. This Court disposed of the Contempt Petition on 24.9.2004 directing her to prosecute the remedy available u/s 13(a). The petitioner therefore filed Miscellaneous Application No.23 of 2004 for recovery of arrears on 24.9.2004. An order was passed in that application directing the respondents to pay the backwages within one month from the date of the order which was passed on 9.8.2005. No payment was made despite this order and, therefore, a fresh Miscellaneous Application was filed by the petitioner which was also decided in his favour. These orders were confirmed in this Court. The respondent Management was directed to deposit 50% of the arrears in the Court and permitted the Petitioner to withdraw the amount. 2. It appears that the Respondent Management later deposited the backwages for the period from 25.10.1999 to 31.10.2006 and the amount payable from June 1992 to 24.11.1999 remained unpaid. According to the Petitioner, the correct payscale and yearly increments have not been taken into consideration by the respondents. Thus, there is a shortfall in the amount paid to her as backwages. The petitioner then filed the present application being Miscellaneous Application No.22 of WP/3657/2010 : 3 : 2007 for initiation of action against the respondent under the provisions of the MEPS Act. 3. The Tribunal has held that the petitioner is not entitled to the amount because she did not produce the calculations as also because the government resolutions on which the petitioner relied were not applicable. 4. In my view, the actual payscales which should be paid to the employee can always be determined by the Director of Education u/s 4(3) of the MEPS Act. Section 4(3) reads as under: (3) If the scales of pay and allowances, post-retirement and other benefits of the employees of any private school are less favourable than those provided by the rules made under sub-section (1), the Director shall direct in writing the Management of such school to bring the same upto the level provided by the said rules, within such period or extended period as may be specified by him. 5. Thus, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the School Tribunal. The Petitioner may approach the Director of Education for fixation of the payscales which are payable to her within four weeks from today. If such an application is made it will be decided as expeditiously as possible by the Director after hearing both the petitioner as well as the respondent. The Director of Education shall decide the application without being influenced by any observations passed by the School Tribunal in the impugned order. 6. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.