1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 124 OF 2011. IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1 OF 2006 (D). Smt. Sulochanadevi Pardhi Shikshan Sanstha,Tumsar, thr. its Member Ramchandra S/o Harishchandra Thakur, Tumsar, District Bhandara and another. .Vrs. Ghanshyam S/o Kothulal Bisen and another. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. (Mr.A.Z.Jibhkate,Advocate for appellants.) -0-0- CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D.KODE, J J. DATED : 24.06.2011 Heard Mr. A. Z. Jibhkate, learned Counsel for appellants/Management and Mr. A.S. Chandurkar, learned Counsel for respondent No 1 employee. Challenge is, the judgment dated 20th October, 2010 delivered by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No 1 of 2006. By this judgment the learned Single Judge has maintained order of Grievance Committee, Nagpur in Appeal No 2 12 of 2004 passed on 22.09.2005. Grievance Committee has directed the appellants to reinstate the respondent No.1 before the end of October, 2005 and to pay him his honorarium / salary for the period for he worked as ‘Shikshan Sevak’ and thereafter his reinstatement regular teacher / assistant teacher. This order is questioned on 4 grounds. It is containing that respondent No.1 was appointed in a vacancy because of removal of a teacher Shri Tembhekar, whose appeal was pending before School Tribunal. It is further alleged that before Grievance Committee challenge was to his oral termination with effect from 15.08.2003, while the Grievance Committee as also the learned Single Judge of this Court has adjudicated upon validity of the impugned termination dated 30th April,2003. Third contention is that, as per Circular dated 13th October, 2000, respondent No.2 had not completed 30 months of service and lastly it is urged that grant of back wages is arbitrary as there is no material on record to support such ground. Mr. A.S. Chandurkar, learned Counsel for 3 respondent No.1 on the other hand has urged that, the oral termination was questioned before Grievance Committee and Management in defence contended that he was terminated on 30th April 2003. Accordingly Grievance Committee has looked into the validity or otherwise of that termination. The Grievance Committee as also this Court has found said termination has got no relation with the appeal which was then pending before School Tribunal. That appeal was ultimately withdrawn and long after the termination of present respondent No1, the employee was permitted to join back. Thus, according to Mr. A.S. Chandurkar, learned Counsel, the appellants had no reason to terminate legally appointed respondent No.1. It is further urged that before this Court affidavit has been filed pointing out that respondent has got no source of income and he was/is out of employment. We find that the question of termination is correctly looked into by Grievance Committee and by the learned Single Judge. When the appellants came up with story of termination on 30.4.2003, it 4 cannot complaint that its validity would not have been looked into. The perusal of the appellant order issued to present respondent No.1 reveals that he was not appointed against any temporary vacancy. After his appointment an undertaking has been obtained from him on 17.02.2003. In that undertaking he has accepted that he has been working in the school from 12.07.2000. This undertaking has been obtained more than 2 and half years after his joining the service. He has further stated that if the teacher whose appeal was pending namely Mr. Tembhekar is required to be reinstated, he would leave the job as a teacher. In the approval given to the appointment of respondent on 23.03.2003 by Education Officer accordingly this conditions has been incorporated. It is also added that the expenditure incurred on respondent no.1 was agreed to be refunded by him in that event. The fact show that appeal filed by Shri Tembhekar was withdrawn by him and he has been permitted to join as ‘Shikshan Sevak’ on 20th August, 5 2003. The appeal was withdrawn on 30th September, 2003. In this background this Court has found in the written statement filed before Grievance Committee, management never pleaded that termination of present respondent No.1 was to accommodate Mr. Tembhekar. Thereafter, the question of completion of 30 months is also looked into and this Court has found that finding recorded in that respect by the Grievance Committee is not perverse. The certificate issued by Education Officer reveals the completion of service of 29 months and 19 days. The Circular dated 13th October 2000 which contains scheme about appointment of ‘Shikshan Sevak’ vide Clause No. 5 (8) postulates that he is to be appointed for three academic years. In Clause No. 8 of the Shikshan Sevak Scheme, it is mentioned that after completion of three years he is to be appointed as a regular teacher/ assistant Teacher. However, this period of three academic years has been explained by saying that it means minimum 30 months. How the period of 30 months is to be calculated is also 6 reflected therein. Period of sanctioned leave and holidays declared by department are to be counted as period of service. If here, this period of vacation (holidays) is taken into account it is apparent that from 12.07.2000 till 30th April 2003 the respondent no.1 has been in service for more than 30 months. The consideration therefore of the controversy by Grievance Committee as also by learned Single Judge of this Court does not appear to be in any way erroneous. The Grievance Committee has, in last but one paragraph observed that- “ The appellant should be paid his honorarium/salary for the period for which he had worked as Shikshan Sewak and there after his reinstatement as regular teacher/ assistant teacher.” We find that, in that portion the Grievance Committee has not directed the Management to pay wages for the period from the date of his termination till reinstatement, The directions is to pay him honorarium/ salary for the period for which he did work and thereafter i.e. after his reinstatement as 7 regular teacher/ assistant teacher. It is nowhere stipulated that his salary till reinstatement needs to be paid by Management. The contention of appellants, about the grant of full back wages by Grievance Committee, therefore, appears to be misconceived. As we do not see any error in concurrent consideration of the controversy, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE scd//