Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Adarsh Shikshan Sanstha, filed a Writ Petition in 1991 challenging an order dated 18.3.1991 of the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal had directed the Petitioner to continue Respondent No.1, Atmaram Baburao Shinde, in the post of Headmaster and to pay the difference in emoluments. Respondent No.1 had challenged the appointment of Respondent No.3 as Headmaster. When the petition was admitted, the Court stayed the Tribunal's order, and Respondent No.3 continued to work as Headmaster. Over time, the dispute became infructuous: Respondent No.1 joined another school in July 1992 and showed no interest in the matter, and Respondent No.3, who had been working as Headmaster under the interim order, retired. The Court noted that Respondent No.1's counsel had no instructions, and Respondent No.3 had retired. Consequently, the Court held that nothing survived in the writ petition and disposed it off as infructuous. Additionally, the Court observed that Respondent No.2, the former Headmistress who served before Respondent No.3's appointment, had not been paid her pension. The Court directed the State Government to ensure that her pensionary benefits are paid forthwith, allowing her to prosecute her claim for pension immediately.
Headnote
A) Service Law - School Tribunal - Infructuous Petition - Writ Petition - The petition challenging the School Tribunal's order directing reinstatement of a teacher as Headmaster was held infructuous as the teacher had joined another school and the interim appointee had retired. The Court disposed of the petition without adjudicating the merits. (Paras 2-3) B) Service Law - Pensionary Benefits - Direction to State Government - The Court directed the State Government to ensure payment of pensionary benefits to Respondent No.2, the former Headmistress, who had not been paid her pension, even though she was not a party to the main dispute. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition challenging the School Tribunal's order directing reinstatement of Respondent No.1 as Headmaster survives when Respondent No.1 has joined another school and the interim appointee has retired.
Final Decision
The writ petition is disposed off as infructuous. The State Government is directed to ensure payment of pensionary benefits to Respondent No.2 forthwith.
Law Points
- Writ petition becomes infructuous when the subject matter of dispute ceases to exist
- Court may direct payment of pensionary benefits to a retired employee even if not a party to the main dispute
