High Court Directs State to Pay Back Wages in Teacher Reinstatement Case Under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules. The court held that the state government must bear the liability for back wages as per the School Tribunal's order, since the Tribunal did not specify the payer and the management had already deposited funds as directed.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 18
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute involved an education society and its college as petitioners against the State of Maharashtra and a teacher as respondents. The teacher was appointed in 1994, confirmed in 1999, suspended in 2015, and terminated in 2017 after an enquiry. She appealed to the School Tribunal, which in 2019 allowed her appeal, quashed the termination, and ordered reinstatement with continuity and full back wages. The management reinstated her in 2020 but did not pay back wages, leading to execution proceedings by the teacher. The management filed a writ petition seeking directions for the state to pay the back wages, arguing liability based on a 1978 circular, while the state contested this. The High Court had earlier directed the management to deposit Rs.35 lakhs as interim relief. The core legal issue was determining liability for back wages under the Tribunal's order. The court analyzed the Tribunal's judgment, which exonerated the teacher and directed reinstatement but did not explicitly assign payment responsibility. Considering the state's role as funder and the management's compliance with the deposit order, the court held the state liable to pay the back wages, thereby resolving the writ petition in favor of directing state action.

Headnote

A) Education Law - Back Wages Liability - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - The High Court considered whether the management or the state government was liable to pay back wages to a teacher reinstated by the School Tribunal. The court analyzed the Tribunal's order, which directed the management to reinstate the teacher and stated 'the appellant shall be given the full back wages and continuity in services.' Held that the Tribunal did not specify who should pay the back wages, and the state government, as the funding authority, must bear the liability, especially since the management had already deposited Rs.35 lakhs as directed. (Paras 7-12)

B) Procedural Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India - The petitioners sought writs of mandamus and certiorari to compel state authorities to comply with the School Tribunal's order and release back wages. The High Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to interpret the Tribunal's order and direct the state to pay the back wages, emphasizing the finality of the Tribunal's judgment. (Paras 4-5, 10)

Issue of Consideration: Who should pay the back wages to the teacher as per the School Tribunal's order?

Final Decision

High Court directed the state government to pay the back wages to the teacher, as the School Tribunal's order did not specify the payer and the management had already deposited Rs.35 lakhs as per court order.

2026 LawText (BOM) (03) 114

Writ Petition No. 501 of 2026

2026-03-23

Ravindra V. Ghuge J. , Abhay J. Mantri J.

2026:BHC-OS:7787-DB

Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Mutahhar Khan, Mr. Hasan Mushabber, Ms. Masira Lulania i/by Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah for the Petitioners, Mr. Milind More, Addl. G.P. for the Respondent/State, Mrs. Meera Mukund More, Respondent No.5, present in-person

Shri Vile Parle Kelavani Mandal Chairman, Shri Vile Parle Kelavani Mandal Secretary, Narsee Monjee College of Commerce & Economics (Autonomous)

State of Maharashtra, State of Maharashtra, Education Department, Deputy Director Education Department, Education Inspector Greater Mumbai, Mrs. Meera Mukund More

Nature of Litigation: Writ petition seeking directions for payment of back wages to a teacher as per School Tribunal order

Remedy Sought

Petitioners seek writs of mandamus and certiorari to direct state respondents to comply with the School Tribunal's order and release back wages to the teacher

Filing Reason

Management aggrieved that state is not paying back wages to teacher as per Tribunal order, leading to execution proceedings by teacher

Previous Decisions

School Tribunal allowed appeal, quashed termination, ordered reinstatement with continuity and full back wages on 20 December 2019; High Court directed management to deposit Rs.35 lakhs on 12 February 2025

Issues

Who should pay the back wages to the teacher as per the School Tribunal's order?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued liability is of state based on circular and precedent State argued liability is of management based on different precedent Teacher sought execution of Tribunal order for back wages

Ratio Decidendi

When a School Tribunal orders reinstatement with back wages without specifying the payer, and the management has complied with interim deposit directions, the state government as the funding authority is liable to pay the back wages.

Judgment Excerpts

The only issue raised before this Court is as to who should pay the back wages to the Teacher. The Management is directed to reinstate the Teacher in service on the same post from which she was terminated. The Appellant shall be given the full back wages and continuity in services.

Procedural History

Teacher appointed in 1994, confirmed in 1999, suspended in 2015, terminated in 2017; appealed to School Tribunal, which allowed appeal in 2019; management reinstated teacher in 2020 but did not pay back wages; teacher filed execution petition; management filed writ petition in 2026; High Court directed deposit of Rs.35 lakhs in 2025; final hearing and judgment in 2026.

Related Judgement
High Court High Court Directs State to Pay Back Wages in Teacher Reinstatement Case Under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules. The court held that the state government must bear the liability for back wages as per the School Tribunal's order, since t...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals by Flat Buyers, Upholds Commission's Order Exonerating Landowners from Joint Liability with Developer for Deficiency in Service Under Consumer Protection Act, 2019