1 wp-5116-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5116 OF 2009 Shri.M.B.High School (E.M.), Vile Parle (E) Mumbai and Anr. ..Petitioners Vs. Mrs.Smita Ramesh Gore ..Respondent .... Mr.S.S.Pathak Adv. for Petitioners Mr.Neel Helekar Adv. for Respondent .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATED : 20th July, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27th February, 2008 passed by the School Tribunal, Mumbai whereby the application preferred by the Petitioner came to be rejected. Respondent no.1 Junior Clerk was terminated, hence, he preferred Appeal No.48 of 2008 before the School Tribunal. In 2 wp-5116-09 the said appeal, an application came to be preferred by the petitioner raising the point of jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It was contended that as the appellant therein was “compulsorily retired”, the appeal was not maintainable before the Tribunal. As stated earlier, this application came to be rejected by order dated 27th February, 2008. 3. Brief facts of this case are that: Respondent No.1 was working as Junior Clerk with Petitioner No.1 which is an English Medium School run by Petitioner No. 2 which is a charitable trust. The Respondent came to be terminated on 23rd December, 2005. The said termination was challenged before the School Tribunal. By order dated 14th August, 2007, the School Tribunal directed that Respondent be reinstated. In the said order, it was observed that after reinstatement, Respondent no.1 and Respondent No.2 are at liberty to initiate inquiry against her as per provisions of M.E.P.S.Act and Rules. Hence, Memo was issued to the Respondent on 18th October, 2005. Thereafter, inquiry came to be held and the Respondent came to be compulsorily retired on 26th September, 2008. Being aggrieved thereby, an appeal came to be preferred by Respondents wherein the above 3 wp-5116-09 mentioned application came to be filed by the Petitioner. 1. The ground taken by the petitioners is that after the inquiry, respondent was “compulsorily retired” from service and according to the petitioners, appeal would lie before the Tribunal only when there is an order of dismissal. The case of the petitioners is that they have neither dismissed nor removed the respondent and therefore, appeal would not lie before the Tribunal. 5. In support of the above contention, the petitioners have relied upon the decision in the case of Shyam Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in II L.L.J. 1954 S.C. 139 wherein the Apex Court has observed that “compulsory retirement does not amount to dismissal or removal”. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that only in cases wherein a person is dismissed or removed an appeal can be filed before the School Tribunal. He further submitted that as the Respondent was “compulsorily retired” which as per the decision of the Supreme Court does not amount to dismissal or removal, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the matter. 6. It is true that compulsory retirement does not amount to 4 wp-5116-09 dismissal or removal. However, in the decision on which reliance has been placed, therein the Apex Court has expressed its opinion while explaining and interpreting Rule 465(A) of the Civil Service Regulations, wherein the scope of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, was being considered. However, the present case is under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, Act, 1977 (in short “M.E.P.S.Act”) and Rules framed thereunder. Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act, deals with right of appeal to Tribunal to employees of private schools and Section 9(1)(a) reads as under: “9.Right of appeal to Tribunal to employees of Private Schools: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract for the time being in force, any employee in a private school,- (a) who is dismissed or removed or whose services are otherwise terminated or who is reduced in rank, by the order passed by the Management; and who is aggrieved, shall have a right of appeal and may appeal against any such order or supersession to the Tribunal constituted under section 8.” 5 wp-5116-09 7. On perusal of Section 9(1)(a), it is seen that it deals with cases of dismissal, removal or termination. It is clear that it also covers cases of employees who have been otherwise terminated. The case of Respondent would, in my opinion, fall under the third category i.e. otherwise terminated. The issue of compulsory retirement, vis a vis the M.E.P.S.Act has been dealt with by this Court in the case of Ramchandra Keshavrao Deo Vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal Nagpur, reported in 2006(3) All M.R. 61. In view of this decision, it is clear that compulsory retirement has to be treated as “otherwise termination”. In view of the above position, the Tribunal was right in holding that it had jurisdiction to deal with the said matter. In view of the above, no case is made out for interference. 8. Writ petition is dismissed. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]