1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.1673 of 2008 The Chairman, Khadkeshwar Shikshan Prasarak Shikshan Mandal, Satara & anr. Petitioners Vs. Sou.Sandhya Ravindra Saygaonkar & anr. Respondents Mr.P.B.Shah for petitioners. Mr.L.S.Deshmukh i/b. Mr.S.S.Pakale for resp.no.1. Ms.V.S.Mhaispurkar, AGP for resp.no.2. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. March 18, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioners. This petition arises from the judgment and order of the School Tribunal at Kolhapur and by the said judgment dated 2/1/2008 Appeal No.191 of 1998 filed by the respondent no.1 - teacher came to be allowed. The order of termination dated 17/10/1998 (Exhibit 7/3/) has been declared illegal and void ab initio and, therefore quashed and set aside by directing the reinstatement of the appellant with full backwages and continuity in service with effect from 17/10/1998. 2. The teacher was initially appointed on a leave 2 vacancy for the period from 5/7/1993 to 30/4/1994 as per the appointment order at Exhibit 7/1. However, subsequently she was issued another appointment order at Exhibit 7/2 as a permanent teacher. She had submitted a complaint to the Taluka Samadeshak Maharashtra Chatra Sena, Satara on 14/7/1998 (Exhibit 14/1/) pointing out that she was paid less honorarium and consequently the authorities had visited the school and directed to pay the remaining honorarium to the appellant. She submitted another complaint dated 20/7/1998 at Exhibit 14/2 addressed to the Head Mistress pointing out that she was not allowed to sign the muster roll from 17/7/1998. Similar complaint she had filed on 21/7/1998 at Exhibit 14/3 and approached the Samadeshak Maharashtra Chatra Sena, Satara by her letter dated 3/8/1998. She submitted yet another complaint on 2/9/1998 to the Head Mistress that she had been to the school on 2/9/1998 with a fitness certificate issued by the doctor and she was not allowed to report for duty. She was served with a termination order on 17/10/1998 and, therefore, she approached the School Tribunal challenging the said illegal termination. In the reply filed by the present petitioners before the School Tribunal it was admitted that termination 3 order was issued on 17/10/1998. Rule 28 of the MEPS Rules, 1981 deals with the removal or termination of service and the said procedure was not followed. Therefore, the School Tribunal rightly held that it was an illegal termination of service. 3. Mr.Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that Appeal no.191 of 1998 was dismissed in default on 9/12/1999 and on an application made by the appellant it came to be restored subsequently by the School Tribunal and, therefore, when the appellant herself was negligent and casual in prosecuting the appeal, it would be unfair that the management is saddled with payment of salary and more so when the concerned school is an unaided school. These submissions of Mr.Shah are reasonable and for the period the appeal was not restored, the appellant must be denied the payment of wages but by giving her the benefit of continuity in service. Hence the petition is disposed off by the following order: (a) The appeal of the respondent no.1 stands allowed partly. 4 (b) The order of termination dated 17/10/1998 is quashed and set aside as being illegal and void ab initio and the present petitioners are directed to reinstate the appellant - teacher in service. (c) The appellant shall be entitled for full backwages from 17/10/1998 till the date of reinstatement, save and except the period from 9/12/1999 till her appeal was restored by the School Tribunal, which means for the period from 9/12/1999 till the appeal was restored she will not get salary for the said period. (d) So far as continuity in service is concerned, she will be entitled for the said benefit with effect from 17/10/1998, irrespective of the period for which she has been denied the benefit of full backwages. . The order passed by the School Tribunal stands modified accordingly. (B.H.MARL