1 WP No.6772/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6772/2010 Smt.Manjiri Suresh Thorat Age:31 Yrs., occu. Service, R/o Plot No.6, Devidas Colony, Subhash Nagar, Old Dhule, P.O.Dhule, Dist.Dhule-424 001. - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) Matru Seva Sangh (A registered Public Trust Through its President/ Chairman, Behind Gurud Vachanalaya, P.O.Dhule, Dhule – 424 001.) 2) The President/Chairman, (A registered Public Trust Through its President/ Chairman, Behind Gurud Vachanalaya, P.O.Dhule, Dhule – 424 001.) 3) Head Mistress, Bal Mandir and Prathamik Shala, Behind Gurud Vachanalaya, P.O.Dhule, Dhule – 424 001.) 4) The Administrative Officer, Municipal Corporation School Board, P.O. Dhule, Dist.Dhule. Dhule – 424 001. 5) The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule. - RESPONDENTS ***** 2 WP No.6772/2010 Mr.SR Barlinge, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.SP Shah, Advocate for Resp.Nos.1 to 3; Mr.PS.Patil, Advocate for Resp.No.4 Mr.RS Pawar, Advocate for Resp.No.5. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 14th NOVEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 2) The petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis for a period from 16.6.2008 to 31.3.2009, as an Assistant Teacher. Even the appointment letter indicated that the services of the petitioner would come to an end on 31st March, 2009. 3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits, there is no compliance of Rule 28(1) of the MEPS Rules of 1981, as the management was required to pay at least one calendar month’s notice or to pay one month’s salary in lieu of such notice. The learned Counsel also submits that the termination of the petitioner is even otherwise bad in law as the management has, for the same academic year 2008-2009, moved with 3 WP No.6772/2010 advertisement for appointment of Shikshan Sevaks, expecting them to appear for interview on 17.9.2008. 4) The reference to the advertisement indeed is not open to be coined as it was for a specific category of Scheduled Tribes candidate, while the petitioner belongs to OBC category. Secondly, the petitioner was, at the inception, informed that her appointment is purely on temporary basis and care in terms of Rule 28(1) of MEPS Rules, 1981, was taken by remittance of Rs.1,000/- as her salary, which indeed, she was all throughout was drawing. 5) The other contentions that the petitioner worked in the institution from 16.7.2007, however, does not indicate that it could be such appointment, or that it was on clear or a permanent vacancy. 6) The order of termination dated 6.11.2008 illustrate, that no stigma is recorded against the petitioner, barring making one month’s salary in lieu of notice, to be paid to her. This illustrate, the management has adhered to the Rules under the MEPS Rules of 1981. 7) The contention of the petitioner though 4 WP No.6772/2010 are too elongated to face several features, however, the parameters therein, being to be restricted to the very appointment letter itself, it answers that the petitioner could not lay her hand to the post beyond the specific period i.e. 31.3.2009. There are no restrictions on the powers of the management, before completion of such period to terminate the services of a temporary employee provided Rule 28(1) of the Rules of 1981 is complied and as stated above, it has been so adhered to. 8) Considering the above facets of the matter, even if the petitioner has been terminated, as stated above on 6.11.2008, the fact remains, she could, at the most, claim her wages or salary for five months up to 31.3.2009. For that purpose, necessary care can be taken. 9) During the course of submissions, Mr. Shah, appearing for the management informs, the management is in tribal area, classes are up to 4th Std. with very meager financial resources. It is conducting/running the school for the up- liftment of tribals. However, he has left the issue of payment of the wages to the petitioner even for the period of five months, i.e. up to 31.3.2009, to the court. 5 WP No.6772/2010 10) Considering all the facts, without castigating the order under challenge dated 22nd April, 2010, the respondent/management is directed to pay consolidated amount of Rs. 15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand), which can be treated as and by way of salary difference for the period of five months. This amount should be sent at the residential address of the petitioner by a Pay Order/Demand Draft up to 29th November, 2011. If the petitioner either refuses or fails to receive the amount, the respondent/management is at liberty to tender the same in this court in the present proceedings. 11) Rule is partly made absolute in the aforesaid terms sd/- (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/