-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 7231 of 2009 Mahamane Santosh Sukumar. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. A. M. Joshi for the Petitioner. Mr. Surel S. Shah for the Respondent no.3. Mr. V. Masurkar, GP for the Respondent nos. 1 & 2 – State. Coram : S. B. Mhase & R. M. Savant, JJ. Date : October 16, 2009. P. C. : 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and heard. 2. The Petitioner is working with the Respondent no.4 – School which is being run by the Respondent no.3. It is admitted by the Respondents that the Petitioner was suspended without taking permission from the Education Officer / Education Department. The said action is taken in view of Rule 33 of the MEPS Rules. Counsel appearing in the matter for the Petitioner and the Respondents admitted that under Rule 33, suspension can be effected by the -: 2 :- Management without taking permission of the Education Officer, however in that event the Education Department is not supposed to re-imberuse the management. Therefore, there is no dispute in respect of the legal position between the parties and in view of the admitted fact that the Petitioner has been suspended without taking permission, the respondent Management, namely, the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are under obligation to pay the suspension allowance to the Petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent states that the bills have been submitted to the Education Officer in view of the direction given by the Education Officer. The Petitioner is not concerned with the dealings of the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 with the Education Officer. In spite of the position of law, if the Education Officer is ready to re- imburse the Respondents, the Petitioner has no grievance about it. But the Respondent cannot withhold the payment of the suspension allowance till the bills submitted by the respondents are approved by the Education Officer. 4. The Grant-in-Aid Code contemplates that initial responsibility of payment of suspension allowance is of the management and the -: 3 :- management is entitled to get re-imbursement of the said amount in case the management satisfies the terms and conditions and requirements as contemplated under the Grant-in-Aid Code. The same has nothing to do with the MEPS Rules, and therefore we do not find substance in the contention raised by the Respondents that if the bills are approved by the Education Officer that amount will be paid. Whether bills are approved or not approved, the legal obligation of the respondents to pay stands as against the petitioner. Therefore, we allow the instant writ petition. It is hereby directed that the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 shall forthwith make the payment of the suspension allowance which is in arrears and shall continuously pay the suspension allowance to the Petitioner as and when it becomes due every month. 5. With the aforesaid directions the instant petition is disposed of by making the Rule absolute in the aforesaid terms. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)