Bombay High Court Dismisses Teacher's Claim for Salary for Period Prior to Interim Order in Service Dispute. Petitioner's claim for salary from 1.1.1997 to 9.2.1998 rejected as no interim order covered that period and no entitlement established.

High Court: Bombay High Court
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Kum. Smita Appasaheb Indulkar (now Mrs. Smita Madukar Tewalekar), filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to release her salary for the period from 1.1.1997 to 9.2.1998. The petitioner was a teacher employed by Rajashri Shahu Shikshan Sanstha (respondent no.2) and posted at Shri Shivshakti Vidyalaya, Kolhapur. The dispute arose regarding her salary for the period prior to an interim order passed by the High Court on 20th July 2001. By that interim order, the petitioner had been paid salary as an untrained teacher from 1.4.1998 until the termination of her service. The petitioner's counsel argued that she was entitled to salary for the earlier period as well. However, the court, after considering the submissions and available material, held that no relief could be granted for the period from 1.1.1997 to 9.2.1998. The court reasoned that the interim order dated 20.7.2001 only covered the period from 1.4.1998 onwards, and there was no legal basis or interim order entitling the petitioner to salary for the earlier period. Accordingly, the claim was rejected.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Salary Claim - Interim Order - Petitioner sought salary for period prior to interim order - Court held that no relief can be granted for period not covered by interim order - Petitioner had been paid salary as untrained teacher from 1.4.1998 onwards pursuant to interim order dated 20.7.2001 - Claim for earlier period rejected as no entitlement established (Paras 2-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary for the period from 1.1.1997 to 9.2.1998 in the absence of any interim order covering that period.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court held that no relief deserves to be granted to the petitioner with regard to her claim of salary for the period from 1.1.1997 to 9.2.1998. The petition was dismissed in respect of that claim.

Law Points

  • No entitlement to salary without interim order or legal basis
  • Interim order does not operate retrospectively
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (05) 237

Writ Petition No.1358 of 2000

2005-05-03

R. M. Lodha, R. S. Mohite

Mr. Sachin Manale i/b. Mr. S.S. Pakale for the petitioner, Mr. R.M. Patne, A.G.P. for respondent no.1, Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for respondent no.2, Mr. S.M. Railkar for respondent no.4

Kum. Smita Appasaheb Indulkar, now Mrs. Smita Madukar Tewalekar

1. State of Maharashtra, 2. The Chairman/Secretary, Rajashri Shahu Shikshan Sanstha, 3. The Head Master, Shri Shivshakti Vidyalaya, 4. The Administrative Officer, Kolhapur Municipal Corporation, 5. The Member, School Tribunal, Kolhapur Region

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition seeking direction to release salary for a specific period.

Remedy Sought

Direction to respondents 2 to 4 to release salary of the petitioner for the period from 1.1.1997 to 9.2.1998.

Filing Reason

Non-payment of salary for the period from 1.1.1997 to 9.2.1998.

Previous Decisions

Interim order dated 20th July 2001 passed by the High Court, pursuant to which the petitioner was paid salary as untrained teacher from 1.4.1998 until termination of her service.

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary for the period from 1.1.1997 to 9.2.1998 in the absence of any interim order covering that period.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner's counsel submitted that by virtue of the interim order dated 20.7.2001, the petitioner has been paid salary as untrained teacher from 1.4.1998 until termination, and pressed for direction to release salary for the period from 1.1.1997 to 9.2.1998.

Ratio Decidendi

No relief can be granted for salary for a period not covered by any interim order or legal entitlement; the interim order dated 20.7.2001 only covered salary from 1.4.1998 onwards.

Judgment Excerpts

Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the available material, we are of the view that no relief deserves to be granted to the petitioner with regard to her claim of salary for the period from 1.1.1997 to 9.2.1998.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1358 of 2000 before the Bombay High Court. On 20th July 2001, an interim order was passed directing payment of salary as untrained teacher from 1.4.1998. The petitioner then pressed for salary for the earlier period from 1.1.1997 to 9.2.1998. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 3rd May 2005.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Teacher's Claim for Salary for Period Prior to Interim Order in Service Dispute. Petitioner's claim for salary from 1.1.1997 to 9.2.1998 rejected as no interim order covered that period and no entitlement established.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Upholds Concurrent Findings of Readiness and Willingness. Agreement to Sell for Shop Premises Enforced as Plaintiff Proved Continuous Readiness and Defendants Failed to Execut...