-1- IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.2491 OF 2004 NO.2491 OF 2004 NO.2491 OF 2004 Smt Pushpa S. Holikatti ...Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents Mr G.S. Godbole for Petitioner. Mr A.H. Palekar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND J.H. BHATIA JJ. DATE : 10TH APRIL 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 30th September 2003 and order dated 12th February 2004 whereby the State Government has directed the Education Officer to recover the salary that has been paid to the petitioner during which period the petitioner was holding the post of President, Municipal Council, Maindargi. It is further directed that if the management does not make recovery, then the action should be taken against the management. The relevant facts are that the petitioner is in the employment of the respondent No.3 as Assistant Teacher. While working as Assistant Teacher, with the permission of the management, she contested elections to the Municipal Council. She was elected as President. While working as President of the Municipal Council, according to her, she was also working as Assistant Teacher and drawing salary. The Government, however, found that payment of salary to the petitioner is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act 1977, but this conclusion has been admittedly reached by the Government without granting to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. In our opinion, the orders -3- for recovery of salary paid to the petitioner are orders having civil consequences. Therefore, even assuming that the Government had the power to make such orders, the orders had to be made in consonance with the principles of natural justice. Admittedly the orders have been made by the State Government without complying with the requirements of natural justice. Therefore, the orders are void. Though the orders made by the State Government are challenged on several grounds by the petitioner, in our opinion, it is not necessary to go into those reasons and grounds because an order having civil consequences made by the Government without complying with the provisions of natural justice make the orders infirm and that ground is enough to set aside the orders. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice. 2. The order dated 30th September 2003 passed by the State Government, copy of which is at Exh.’R’ to the petition and the order passed by the State Government dated 12th February 2004, copy of which is at Exh.’V’ to the petition and consequent orders made by the authorities subordinate to the State Government are set aside. The State Government, however, shall be at liberty to make the same order after complying with the principles of natural justice. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. -4- . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( J.H. BHATIA J.)