1 MSS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 6271 OF 2006 SMT. KALANDI K. RAI .. PETITIONER VS. ADARSH VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL & ORS. RESPONDENTS Mr. M. S. Lagu for petitioner Mr. P. P. Kakade, AGP Mr. A. L. Gore for R-5. CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. R.S. DALVI, JJ. DATE: 17-1-2008 P.C. . Leave to amend and add Mr. Girish Rai as party respondent. Amendment to be carried out immediately. 2. Respondent 5 Girish Rai has filed Writ Petition No. 255 of 2002 praying that order 29/12/01 passed by the Additional School Tribunal, Navi Mumbai in Appeal No. 96 of 2000 filed by the petitioner be quashed and set aside. By the order dated 29//12/01, the School Tribunal has set aside order dated 30/9/00 demoting the petitioner. On this 2 petition Rule was issued on 15/2/02. Interim relief, however, was not granted by the court. 3. The petitioner’s case is that as a result she is working as Headmistress in the Adarsha Saraswati Hindi High School, Thane run by the 1st respondent till date. 4. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the 3rd respondent i.e. Deputy Director of Education, Mumbai, in not releasing salaries of the teachers, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 8860 of 2004 in this court. That writ petition was disposed of by order dated 22/12/04 by consent of the parties. The order reads thus; . "Heard Mr. Lagu, learned Counsel for Petitioner and Mr. Sonawane, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 2. By consent of parties following order passed: 3. Respondent No. 3 is directed to accept and sanction salary bills submitted by the petitioner in her capacity as Headmistress and release salary including arrears of the teaching 3 staff including petitioner, in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations. 4. Release and disbursement of the salary shall be subject to the final outcome of W.P. 255 of 2002. All rights and contentions of parties are left open. 5. We make it clear that Government in no case shall be required to pay salary twice and only one set of salary will be released. 6. Petition disposed off, C.C. expedited." 5. Thereafter respondent 3 i.e. Education Officer again issued order dated 6/7/05 stating that the salary bills cannot be accepted in view of the pendency of Writ Petition No. 255 of 2002 filed by the 5th respondent. 6. The petitioner then filed Contempt Petition No. 223 of 2005. On 8/3/06 the learned Single Judge disposed of the said contempt petition leaving all questions open and giving liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate remedy as she may be advised. 7. In Writ Petition No. 225 of 2002 respondent 5 4 took out Civil Application No. 13 of 2006. In this civil application respondent 5’s grievance inter alia was that the petitioner had only submitted her salary bills. She has not submitted salary bills of respondent 5 and other staff members. To this civil application respondent 5 had also annexed order dated 22/12/04 passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 8860 of 2004 filed by the petitioner. 8. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner is also heavily relying on this order. In Civil Application No. 13 of 2006 respondent 5 prayed that the petitioner be directed to submit his salary bills as per Government Scale to the State of Maharashtra through Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Thane and Education Officer be directed to sanction the same and send them to Adarsha Saraswati Hindi High School for the payment of arrears of salaries from September, 2002 till date as well as regular salary as per the Government Scale every month to the petitioner. This civil application was disposed of by learned Single Judge on 23/1/06. The learned Single Judge observed that the petitioner had made a statement that in her capacity as Headmistress she had submitted the 5 bills to the State and it was for the State to accept the bills and release the payments. The learned Single Judge, therefore, directed the State to make the necessary payments as per the relevant rules and law within four weeks from the date of the order. Since this order was not followed, the 5th respondent filed Contempt Petition No. 111 of 206. That petition is pending and is tagged to Writ Petition No. 255 of 2002. 9. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of clear direction given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 8860 of 2004 by its order dated 22/12/04, the education officer has again issued order dated 6/7/05 inter alia stating that the salary bills cannot be accepted in view of the pendency of Writ Petition No. 255 of 2002. The petitioner, has, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to release grant and sanction and approve the salary of the petitioner in proper scale to the post of Headmistress forthwith in pursuance of the salary bills forwarded by the petitioner. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for 5th respondent and 6 the learned AGP. 11. There can be no debate over the fact that order dated 22/12/04 passed by the Division Bench of this court, so also order dated 23/1/06 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court have not been complied with by the respondents. They will have to comply those orders. Perhaps it is pendency of Writ Petition No. 255 of 2002 which has prevented the respondents from complying with these orders. However, in order dated 22/12/04 this court has clarified that release and disbursement of the salary will be subject to the final outcome of Writ Petition No. 255 of 2002. All rights and contentions of the parties are also left open. Therefore, the respondents ought to have complied with the orders of this court. 12. In any case since the petitioner and the 5th respondent have found out a via media which will keep the contentions of the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent open and which will not require Government to pay two sets of salaries after complying with the orders of this court, we do not wish to go into the aspect of non-compliance of the orders passed by this court. 7 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tendered undertaking of the petitioner stating that she will reimburse the difference between the salary as is applicable to the post of headmaster and the salary as is applicable to the post of Assistant Teacher to the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 255 of 2002, i.e. respondent No. 5, if he succeeds in his Writ Petition No. 255 of 2002 which is pending in this court. The said undertaking is taken on record and marked "X". The said undertaking is accepted by this court. 14. Petitioner Kalandi Rai is present in the court. She confirms what is stated in the undertaking. The learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 5th respondent and learned AGP are agreed that in view of this undertaking which is accepted by this court, this petition can be disposed of. 15. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent has pointed out that as per order dated 22/12/04 passed in Writ Petition No. 8860 of 2004 respondent 2 is directed to accept and sanction salary bills submitted by the petitioner in capacity as 8 Headmistress and release salary including the arrears of the teaching staff including petitioner in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations. He submits that the petitioner has, however, not submitted the salary bills of the teaching staff which also includes respondent 5. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions from Smt. Kalandi Rai states that she will submit salary bills of staff also. Needless to say that that will include respondent 5. 17. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner which,we have accepted, 1st respondent is directed to comply with the order dated 22/12/04. The stand taken by the State that, it shall pay salary in one set only is correct and accepted. In view of the undertaking filed by the petitioner, the State will not be burdened with more than what is required to be paid. 18. We must make it clear that we have not decided whether the petitioner is the headmistress of the 1st respondent or not. That question is subjudice in this court in Writ Petition No. 255 of 2002. At the cost of repetition, we must note that the 9 order dated 22/12/04 states that release and disbursement of the salary shall be subject to the final outcome of the Writ Petition No. 255 of 2002. All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. We reiterate the same statement. 19. In view of the above, we direct the 3rd respondent to accept and sanction salary bills submitted by the petitioner and release salaries of the petitioner including arrears of salary of the teaching staff which includes 5th respondent. 20. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE