AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)
By the present petition, the petitioners are seeking relief that the salary and allowances of the deceased Manjusha Pingale for the period from 22nd April, 2013 to 5th February, 2015, be paid.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited our attention to the Judgment and Order dated 31st December, 2013 passed by the School Tribunal, Pune, in Appeal No. 12 of 2013, whereby, the appeal was allowed and the termination order dated 22nd April, 2013 was declared illegal, unjust and improper and was therefore, quashed and set aside. The respondents were directed to reinstate the appellant with back wages on her original post with continuity of service and other consequential benefits. It appears that this order was challenged before this Court and that the Writ Petition was dismissed. Thus, the order passed by the School Tribunal, Pune, in Appeal No.12 of 2013 has attained finality.
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited our attention to the array of parties. The management as well as the State and the Education Officer are the parties to the said proceedings and the order is very clear that the respondents were directed to pay the back wages.
Learned Counsel Mr. Apte appearing for the Management submits that he has already forwarded the proposal to the Education Officer, however, there is no response to it. He has invited out attention to the affidavit filed by the Management which states that the proposal was already forwarded to the Education Officer. Mr. Walimbe, learned Addl.G.P appearing for the Education Officer, on the contrary, stated that because the termination was not in accordance to Rule 33, hence it is the Management who is to pay the back wages. Be that as it may, the order passed by the learned School Tribunal in Appeal No.12 of 2013 will have to be followed. Going by that order, it was the respondents therein who were directed to reinstate the appellant with back wages on her original post with continuity of services and other consequential benefits. In this premise, since the Management has already forwarded the proposal to the Education Officer, the dispute is now between the Education Officer and the Management. For this purpose, the employee of the school cannot be penalized. In any event, in teeth of the order dated 31st December, 2013, both the respondents cannot pass the buck at each other and cannot deprive the petitioner of the back wages which were granted by the order dated 31st December, 2013.
In these circumstances, we feel it appropriate to direct the State Government to pay the back wages of the appellant as per the proposal submitted by the Respondent-Institution. If at all, it is the case of the State that it is the Respondent–Institution who was responsible for the payment of the same, then it is between the State and the Respondent–Institution to decide the same, however, for that purpose, the employee cannot be kept waiting indefinitely. As it is the order was passed on 31st December, 2013 and it is till 2026, the petitioner has not got the benefit of the order. The petitioner has to be paid the back wages.
Mr. Walimbe, the learned Addl.G.P. states that this exercise will take some time i.e. atleast three months.
In these circumstances, we direct the Respondent – State to pay the back wages to the petitioner as contemplated in the order dated 31st December, 2013. It is open for the State Government to initiate action against the Management for the purpose of recovery of the said amount. It is equally open for the Management to contend that they were not responsible to pay the amount and it is the State Government who has to pay the amount.
Keeping contentions between the respondents inter-se open, we direct the Respondent – State to disburse the amount as per the order dated 31st December, 2013, within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order.
The Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.