1 WP2756-2757.10 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2756 OF 2010 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1931 OF 2010 Swami Vivekanand Education Society ... Petitioner v/s The Deputy Director of Education & ors. ... Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO. 2757 OF 2010 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1932 OF 2010 Swami Vivekanand Education Society ... Petitioner v/s The Deputy Director of Education & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Tushar Sonawane for the petitioner in both petitions. Ms.S.S.Bhende, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in both petitions. Ms.Anita Chawre /by Mr.S.S.Deshmukh for Resp. No.3 in both petitions. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: 24TH AUGUST, 2011 2 WP2756-2757.10 P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Sonawane, the learned counsel for the petitioners in both petitions. 2. Both the petitions are filed by the Education Society and though the orders are different, the challenge is common and, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment. 3. Rule. Respondents waives service. 4. As the affidavit in reply has been filed by the Deputy Director of Education, the petitions are heard finally. 5. The present respondent No.3 employees had filed two separate writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition Nos.186 of 2007 and 2981 of 2007 respectively, seeking directions for the payment of their salary and both petitions were decided by a common order dated 26.1.2007 with a direction to the Deputy Director of Education to hear the parties and decide the dates from which the respondent employees could be treated to be approved employees. Consequently, the parties were heard and the impugned orders came to be passed on 3 WP2756-2757.10 26.2.2008. It is a common finding that the strength of the school up to the academic year 1998-99 was less than 500 and, therefore, the posts of peon and clerk could not have been sanctioned unless the strength of the students had reached 500 or crossed the same figure. On verification of the record, it is noted that the strength of the students in the academic year 1998-99 exceeded 500 and, therefore, the posts of peon as well clerk could be sanctioned to the school which is an aided. However, by the impugned orders, the Deputy Director of Education directed that the salaries of both employees could be reimbursed by the State Government only from 1.2.2006 and for the period from 1.6.1999 to 31.1.2006 the payment was required to be made from the funds of the Education Society. Once the posts were sanctioned from 1.6.1999, there was no reason why the Society could not submit the salary bills of the peon as well as clerk to the Education Officer. 6. We have perused the affidavit in reply filed by Shri Suresh Ramkrshna Pathak, Science Consultant, in the office of the Deputy Director of Education. It has been pointed out in the said affidavit that the strength of the school concerned was less than 500 students in the classes which were aided and,therefore, the record indicated that this strength crosses 4 WP2756-2757.10 500 only by 1.6.1999. The affidavit further states that vide letter dated 2.2.2006 it was informed that the posts of peon and clerk became admissible. In our opinion, this letter dated 2.2.2006 which is highly belated cannot be treated to be reference point and the school is entitled for claiming salaries of the peon and clerk from 1.6.1999. Our attention has been invited to a letter dated 30.7.1998 addressed by the Deputy Director of Education to the Director of Education informing the strength of certain schools and at Sr.No.6 is the name of the petitioner school. As per the said communication, in the academic year 1998-99, the strength of the petitioner school was more than 1000. The learned counsel for the petitioner Society therefore claimed that the grand-in-aid for the posts of peon and clerk must be made available from 1.6.1998. There is nothing to controvert the letter dated 30.7.1998 in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents. Once it is held that on crossing the total strength of 500 students, the posts of peon and clerk could be sanctioned in the staffing pattern. The letter dated 2.2.2006 by itself cannot be a reason to hold that the school will be entitled for reimbursement of the salary only from 2.2.2006. 7. We, therefore, allow these petitions and direct that the petitioner Society shall be entitled to claim the salary 5 WP2756-2757.10 reimbursement for the posts of peon as well as clerk with effect from 1.6.1998. If the bills are submitted within a period of four weeks from today, we direct the Deputy Director of Education to ensure that the bills are cleared within eight weeks from their receipt. 8. The impugned orders stand modified accordingly. Petitions are partly allowed. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 employees stated before us that she will take appropriate steps to withdraw the contempt petitions filed and pending before this Court within two weeks from today. 10. On disposal of these petitions, the civil applications bearing Nos.1931 of 2010 and 1932 of 2010, do not survive and, therefore, stand dismissed. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.) 6 WP2756-2757.10