Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2024 DAILYLAW 1700 (BOM)

RAJVINDER KAUR SAINI v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS.

IA/253/2024 · 2026-08-06

Shri M S Karnik, Shri S M Modak

body2024

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

38-IA-253-2024-IN-WP(ST)-14010-2017.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.253 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.14010 OF 2017 Rajvinder Kaur Saini, Age : 59 Years, Occupation : Service, Residing at : Flat No.304, Building No.2, Om Saikrupa Society, Santinagar, Ulhasnagar–3, District : Thane. ...Applicant In the matter between:- Rajvinder Kaur Saini, Age : 59 Years, Occupation : Service, Residing at : Flat No.304, Building No.2, Om Saikrupa Society, Santinagar, Ulhasnagar–3, District : Thane. ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Chief Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai : 400032 and Others… ...Respondents =================================================== Ms.Swarna P. Munshi, Advocate for Applicant/Petitioner. Smt.R.M.Shinde, AGP, for Respondents–State. =================================================== CORAM : M.S.KARNIK & S.M.MODAK, JJ. DATE : 6th AUGUST 2026 P. C. :- Satish Sangar 1/4 SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Digitally signed by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date: 2026.08.06 20:13:07 +0530 38-IA-253-2024-IN-WP(ST)-14010-2017.doc 1. We have heard learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. This is an Application seeking directions to the Respondent– Management to pay legal dues and pending wages. There is no appearance on behalf of the Management though they are duly served. 3. The Applicant was appointed as “Primary Teacher” in the Respondent–School on 15th June 1988. At the time of retirement, the Applicant was “Supervisor of Primary Section”. The Applicant was suspended with effect from 28th February 2015. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant that neither any inquiry was conducted nor the suspension allowance is paid. 4. This Court by an order dated 2nd August 2016, directed the Respondent–Management to pay the suspension allowance to the Applicant as per the Rules including Rule 35(4) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981(“MEPS Rules, 1981”) and also directed the Respondent– Management to conclude the disciplinary inquiry initiated against the Applicant as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 2 months from 2nd August 2016. 5. It is submitted that the Applicant was paid some amount by way of suspension allowance. The Management did not conduct any Satish Sangar 2/4 38-IA-253-2024-IN-WP(ST)-14010-2017.doc inquiry till the date of retirement of the Applicant. It is submitted that the Applicant retired on 31st July 2022. 6. It is contended by the Applicant that a meeting was conducted by the Management on 29th July 2022. The Applicant attended the meeting. The President of the Institution informed the other members to clear all the dues and wages of the Applicant. The Applicant submitted her detailed calculations of the due amount vide the letter dated 10th October 2022 to the Management. The Management by communication dated 23rd June 2023 asked the Applicant to give year- wise statement. The Applicant by letter dated 26th June 2023 handed over the statement of year-wise salary, P.F. amount dues calculation and gratuity calculation. The Management received the said letter dated 26th June 2023. 7. The reason why the Applicant was suspended as far back on 28th February 2015 was that the Applicant had appointed a teacher without consent of the Management. It is the Applicant’s case that the appointment was in terms of the directions of the Management. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the Petition. 8. In such view of the matter, as the inquiry has not proceeded till the date of retirement, it would be unfair to deprive the Applicant of Satish Sangar 3/4 38-IA-253-2024-IN-WP(ST)-14010-2017.doc her retiral dues. We are inclined to allow this Application in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c). 9. Accordingly, the Interim Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The Application stands disposed of. 10. This order be complied within a period of 8 weeks from the date of its communication. (S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.) Satish Sangar 4/4