1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5047 OF 2010 1. Manohar s/o Kalu Baviskar, Age 55 years, Occu.Service, presently working as Headmaster, New English School, Jamner, Taluka Jamner, District Jalgaon 2. Sow.Suman w/o Manohar Baviskar, Age 53 years, Occu.Service, presently working as Assistant Teacher, New English School, Jamner, Taluka Jamner, District Jalgaon Both r/o Indira Lalwani Housing Society, Jalgaon Road, Jamner, Taluka Jamner, District Jalgaon ..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Nasik Division, Nasik 4. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon 5. Jamner Taluka Education Society, Jamner, District Jalgaon, through its President/Secretary ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.R.Barlinge, Advocate or petitioners Mr D.R.Kale, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 Mr V.G.Sakolkar, Advocate for respondent No.5 2 CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 22nd March 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith, by consent. 2. The short question involved in the present petition is whether the petitioners, who are employed with respondent No.5 can be continued on suspension even after their custody, either Police or Magisterial had come to an end. According to the petitioners they were suspended on 12.4.2010 and 15.4.2010, respectively. They were in a position to join duty from 23.4.2010 after they were released on bail. The petitioners contend, therefore, that in accordance with Rule 33 (5) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules they are entitled to join duty and earn wages in accordance with law. The petitioners contend that the respondents cannot continue to pay them only subsistence allowance and not full wages. 3. This issue is no longer res integra, as it has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madhukar Namdeo Patil Vs. Chairman Sudhagad Education Society and others, reported on 2000 (4) Mh.L.J.206. The Division Bench has held that Rule 33 (5) of the aforesaid Rules indicates that an employee would be 3 considered to be under suspension when (i) proceedings have been taken in respect of a criminal charge against the employee or (ii) where the employee is detained under any law, for the time being in force, providing for preventive detention. The period during which the employee is to be considered under suspension is stipulated under Sub-rule (5), which provides that the employee would be considered under suspension for any period during which he was under preventive detention or when he was detained in either Police or Judicial custody for a period exceeding 48 hours or is undergoing imprisonment. The Rule does not provide that the suspension period comes to an end only on an acquittal in the criminal prosecution. A similar view has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1248 of 2008 decided on 23.9.2008. 4. In these circumstances, in our view the petition must be allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) and (C) and is accordingly allowed. 5. Rule made absolute. No costs. ( S.S. SHINDE, J.) ( SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. ) (vvr/5047.10wp)