Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rupnawar Dhanaji Dinkar, was appointed as a teacher in a school run by Jai Bhavani Education Society (respondent no.1) on 13 June 1992. He claimed that he was not paid salary from the date of his appointment. The school initially received 25% grant-in-aid from 1997 and was brought on 100% grant-in-aid in 2000. The petitioner alleged that other teachers had filed a writ petition (No.1899 of 1999) and obtained directions for payment of salary, but he was left out. He filed the present writ petition in 2003 seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to pay his salary arrears from June 1992. The State of Maharashtra (respondent no.6) denied liability, stating that the school was on 100% grant-in-aid only from 2000 and that no proposal for the petitioner's appointment or salary was ever submitted to the education authorities. Respondents 1 and 2 filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner was working purely on a temporary basis from June 1992, and though an appointment order was issued, it was not approved by the education department. The court noted that the petitioner had not explained the delay of 11 years in filing the petition and that his appointment was not approved by the education authorities. The court held that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and for lack of approval. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Laches - Delay in Filing Writ Petition - Petitioner appointed as teacher on 13.6.1992 but not paid salary; filed writ petition in 2003 without explaining delay of 11 years - Held that unexplained delay and laches disentitles the petitioner to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (Paras 4-5).
B) Service Law - Appointment - Approval by Education Authorities - Petitioner's appointment was temporary and not approved by the education authorities; school was on 25% grant-in-aid initially and later 100% grant-in-aid - Held that without approval, the petitioner cannot claim salary from the State or the management (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for payment of salary from June 1992 onwards despite the delay in filing the writ petition and the lack of approval of his appointment by the education authorities.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Laches
- Delay and laches
- Writ jurisdiction
- Salary arrears
- Approval of appointment
- Grant-in-aid
Case Details
WRIT PETITION NO.8323 OF 2003
Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, Riyaz I. Chagla
None for the Petitioner, Mr. Vijay Patil for Respondent nos.1 and 2, Mr. A.P. Vanarase Asst. Govt. Pleader for Respondent nos.3 to 6
Jai Bhavani Education Society, Head Master, Shriram Kholeshwar High School, Educational Officer (Secondary) Satara Zilla Parishad, Deputy Education Officer (Second) Satara Zilla Parishad, Director of Education Kolhapur, State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking direction for payment of salary arrears.
Remedy Sought
Direction against respondent nos.1 and 2 to pay salary to the petitioner from June 1992 onwards.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was appointed as a teacher on 13.6.1992 but was not paid salary since appointment.
Previous Decisions
Other teachers of the school had filed Writ Petition No.1899 of 1999 and this Court had directed respondent nos.1 and 2 to release their salary.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for payment of salary from June 1992 onwards despite the delay in filing the writ petition?
Whether the petitioner's appointment was approved by the education authorities, entitling him to salary?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: He was appointed on 13.6.1992 and not paid salary; school was on 25% grant-in-aid from 1997 and 100% from 2000; other teachers got relief in WP No.1899/1999.
Respondent no.6 (State): School was on 100% grant-in-aid only from 2000; no proposal for appointment or salary was submitted to education authorities.
Respondent nos.1 and 2: Petitioner worked purely on temporary basis; appointment order was issued but not approved by education department.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches when there is unexplained delay in filing the petition. Additionally, an appointment that is not approved by the education authorities does not entitle the appointee to claim salary from the State or the management.
Judgment Excerpts
By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the respondent nos.1 and 2 to pay the salary to the petitioner from June, 1992 onwards.
The respondent no.1 State of Maharashtra has denied the liability to pay the salary.
The respondent nos.1 and 2 have filed the affidavit in reply. It is stated in the affidavit in reply that the petitioner was working purely on temporary basis from June, 1992 and though the appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner, the same was not approved by the education department.
The petitioner has not explained the delay in filing the writ petition. The writ petition is filed in the year 2003 and the petitioner claims salary from June, 1992.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.8323 of 2003 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay seeking a direction for payment of salary from June 1992. The respondents filed their replies. The petition was heard and dismissed on 2 November 2017.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
