-1- FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 2768/2008. ( Bhartiya Sewa Sadan -versus- Ganpat Vishwambhar Ambilwade and others ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 29, 2008. Heard Shri R.L. Khapre, Advocate for petitioner and Shri P.A. Kadu, Advocate for respondent no.1, learned Assistant Government Pleader appears for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Challenge in this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the judgment of the School Tribunal dated 03.03.2008 delivered in Appeal No. 18/2005. The School Tribunal has found that the application allegedly submitted by the present respondent no.1 for his voluntary retirement cannot be accepted and acted upon, as it has not been submitted in accordance with Section 7 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) -2- Regulation Act, 1977. The employee has contended before the School Tribunal that his signature was forcibly obtained on said document by the Management and that it has been shown that the said application is received by it on 31.03.2005. In these circumstances and after considering the previous relation between the parties, the School Tribunal has accepted the stand of the employee. Advocate Shri Khapre, for petitioner contends that neither the M.E.P.S. Act nor the Rules framed thereunder prescribe any procedure for submitting of application for voluntary retirement. He states that therefore, the field is unoccupied and hence procedure prescribed in Government resolution dated 09.09.1988 has to apply even to the present respondent no.1. He relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satya Narain Shukla .vrs. Union of India (AIR 2006 SC 2511) in support of his contention. He therefore, states that view taken by the School Tribunal is contrary to law. He further argues that the story of respondent no.1 about submitting said resignation under coercion or force is also not supported by any material on record and there are inherent inconsistencies in it. Advocate Shri Kadu, on the other hand -3- argues that there is no question of considering the Government resolution dated 09.09.1988 because Section 7 of the M.E.P.S,. Act specifically covers the field. The provision of either the M.E.P.S. Act or Rules do not expressly prescribe the procedure for submitting voluntary resignation application. Power has been given to Government in this behalf. The Government also has not prescribed any procedure separately so far as the employees of private schools are concerned, the resolution dated 09.09.1988 only applies to the scheme of voluntary retirement to those employees. In these circumstances, it is apparent that it cannot be held that by issuing such Government resolution, government has in any way prescribed any procedure which is not stipulated by or contrary to Section 7 of the M.E.P.S. Act. Voluntary retirement application is also a sort of voluntary act of resignation by employee and Section 7 is incorporated to protect the employees from exploitation at the hands of the Management. Advocate Shri Khapre, contends that because the respondent no.1 wanted to get rid of the departmental enquiry against him, he submitted such application for voluntary retirement. In -4- present facts I am not in a position to accept such argument. Admittedly, the procedure prescribe under section 7 of the M.E.P.S Act has not been followed in the matter. No case is made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. No cost. JUDGE Rgd.