83 WP 615 OF 2024.odt aqIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 83 WRIT PETITION NO. 615 OF 2024 THE PRESIDENT RAJAPUR SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL AND ANR VERSUS ATMARAM JAGANNATH MESTRY AND ORS ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Ameya Borwankar Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Avinash Ram Belge A.G.P. for Respondent/State : Mr. J. P. Patil ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7940 OF 2023 ATMARAM JAGANNATH MESTRY AND ORS VERSUS THE PRESIDENT RAJAPUR SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL AND ANR … Advocate for Petitioners: Mr. Mr. Avinash Ram Belge Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Avinash Ram Belge A.G.P. for Respondent/State : Mr. J. P. Patil ... CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 27.07.2026 PER COURT : Heard both sides. 2. In both petitions, judgment and order dated 11.09.2017, passed by the School Tribunal Kolhapur, in Appeal No. 29/2015, is under challenge. 3. The petitioner-employee is aggrieved by clause No. 3 and 4 of the impugned judgment and order, thereby denying benefits from 01.06.2015 to 31.08.2017. 4. The petitioner is the permanent employee of respondent no. 1- 1/4 83 WP 615 OF 2024.odt Management, working in the aided school. He was holding qualification of M.A. D.H.E. and appointed on 13.06.1985. Respondent no. 3 was appointed on 19.06.1991. The petitioner was the senior most teacher in category ‘C’. He was being superseded by respondent no. 3 for filling up post of headmaster. Being aggrieved, petitioner had preferred Appeal No. 29/2015. He was claiming post of headmaster with effect from 01.06.2015. 5. Respondent no. 3 did not contest the claim before the Tribunal. Respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 contested the claim. Respondent no. 3 has not caused appearance in this matter but no prejudice would be caused if the order is passed in the matter without disturbing his position or the benefits. 6. By the impugned judgment and order, Tribunal allowed appeal partly holding that petitioner was senior most teacher from 2016. He was directed to be given notional promotion as a headmaster on 31.08.2017, which was his date of superannuation. He was denied back wages during 01.06.2015 to 31.08.2017. In this backdrop, this Court is dealing with the petitions preferred before this Court. 7. Undisputedly, the petitioner attained age of superannuation on 31.08.2017. Thereafter, impugned judgment was rendered on 11.09.2017. The counsel appearing for the respondent-Management, on instructions of his client fairly submits that if the petitioner is giving up the monetary benefits from 01.06.2015 to 31.08.2017, the management does not have serious objection for treating him as a headmaster at the time of superannuation and accordingly ready to forward the pension papers to the Education Officer. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions of his client, who is present today before this Court gives up the monetary claim from 01.06.2015 to 31.08.2017, if the respondent-management is ready to treat him as a headmaster on the date of superannuation. 2/4 83 WP 615 OF 2024.odt 9. The learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent/State would submit that no additional financial burden can be imposed on a public exchequer. If the concessions given by counsels appearing for the parties are affecting the financial liability of the Education Officer, then he would oppose both the petitions. 10. The petitioner is not claiming back wages or monetary benefits from 01.06.2015 to 31.08.2017. The management has no serious objection for treating the petitioner as a headmaster on the date of superannuation i.e. 31.08.2017. It is informed by learned counsel for the respondent- Management that though respondent no. 3 was promoted on the post of headmaster, he was not being approved and there was no disbursement of salary to him as headmaster. 11. Considering the dates of appointment of petitioner and respondent no. 3, there is no difficulty in upholding the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioner is the senior most teacher in category ‘C’. Relying upon the judgment of the High Court in the matter of Anil Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2016(5) All M.R. 491, the qualification of DHE, of the petitioner is treated to be equivalent with B.Ed. I do not find any fault with the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioner was holding qualification of headmaster. I do not find that there is any patent illegality or perversity in the impugned order in holding that the petitioner should have been promoted on the post of headmaster on 01.06.2015. 12. The petitioner has given up his claim for back wages or the monetary benefits from 01.06.2015 to 31.08.2017. There is no legal impediment in treating the petitioner as a headmaster with effect from 01.06.2015 till superannuation. His status on the date of his superannuation is significant for fixing the retiral benefits. It is made clear that petitioner shall be entitled to be treated as a head master on his last date of service i.e. 31.08.2017. If the petitioner is notionally treated to be headmaster from 3/4 83 WP 615 OF 2024.odt 01.06.2015 to 31.08.2017, no prejudice would be caused to respondent- Department or any other person. It is already made clear that no salary or other benefits are disbursed for the post of headmaster though respondent no. 3 is promoted as a headmaster. I do not find any prejudice would be caused to the public exchequer. 13. In that view of the matter, I find that both the petitions are disposed of and clause no. 3 and 4 of the impugned judgment shall be replaced as under: (i) The petitioner shall be treated to be promoted to the post of headmaster from 01.06.2015 and he shall be declared to be superannuated as headmaster. (ii) His retiral benefits shall be fixed on last pay drawn for the post of headmaster. (iii) The respondent-management shall forward the papers to the respondent-Department in accordance with the minutes of the today’s order. (iv) The petitioner shall not be entitled to monetary benefits from 01.06.2015 to 31.08.2017. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) mkd/- 4/4