Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shaikh Tausif Ahmed Khamar Pasha, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Ambar Urdu Primary School (respondent No. 2) managed by Ambar Shikshan Prasarak Va Bahuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha (respondent No. 1) on 15 June 2009. The school is unaided, and approval for his appointment was granted on a non-grant basis, making respondent Nos. 1 and 2 responsible for salary payment. His services were discontinued from 19 September 2016, which he challenged by filing an appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 before the School Tribunal, Aurangabad. During the appeal, a compromise was reached: the petitioner would be reinstated from 1 March 2017, and the period from 19 September 2016 to 28 February 2017 would be treated as leave without pay. However, the petitioner claimed salary for the period from 1 March 2017 to 30 April 2017, alleging that he was not paid despite working. The management disputed this, asserting that the petitioner had not actually worked after reinstatement. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking payment of salary for March and April 2017. The key legal issue was whether the High Court could entertain the petition given the factual dispute over whether salary was payable. The petitioner argued that the Rules of 1981 obligated the management to pay salary and that the writ court could enforce them. The respondents countered that the dispute required factual adjudication, which was beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction. The Court analyzed that the existence of a factual dispute—whether the petitioner actually worked and was entitled to salary—could not be resolved in writ proceedings. It held that the proper remedy was to approach the School Tribunal under the MEPS Act, which has the power to decide such disputes. The Court dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh proceeding before the School Tribunal, and directed that if such a proceeding is filed within four weeks, the Tribunal shall decide it expeditiously without raising the issue of limitation.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Disputed Questions of Fact - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The Court held that where there is a factual dispute regarding payment of salary, the writ court cannot adjudicate such disputes and the petitioner must be relegated to the remedy under the MEPS Act, 1977. The existence of Rules of 1981 does not automatically confer jurisdiction on the High Court to decide factual controversies. (Paras 2, 7-8) B) Service Law - Salary Dispute - Alternative Remedy - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, Section 9 - The petitioner, an assistant teacher in an unaided private school, claimed salary for a period after reinstatement. The management disputed the claim. The Court held that the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act is the appropriate forum to decide such factual disputes, and the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the Tribunal. (Paras 3-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether in the light of existence of factual dispute as to whether any salary is payable or not for a particular period, this Court can entertain the present petition only on account of the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh proceeding before the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, 1977. If such proceeding is filed within four weeks from today, the Tribunal shall decide it expeditiously without raising the issue of limitation.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction not available for disputed questions of fact
- Alternative remedy under MEPS Act
- 1977
- Section 9 appeal
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules
- 1981
