O R D E R

1. The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated 14th October, 2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, repelling the challenge laid by it to the judgment dated 09th August, 2019 passed by the Additional School Tribunal1, Chandrapur, Maharashtra, on an appeal preferred by the respondent no.1 against the order of termination dated 27th June, 2017 passed by the appellant- Management.

2. Vide order dated 09th August, 2019, the Tribunal had directed the appellants to reinstate respondent no.1 in service as an Assistant Teacher. Aggrieved by the said order, when the appellants approached the High Court, order passed by the Tribunal was upheld and it was observed that the plea taken by the appellants that the respondent no.1 had voluntarily resigned from service, was held unacceptable, keeping in mind the factual background of the case and the preponderance of probabilities that as per the High Court weighed in favour of the respondent no.1 and against the appellant no.1-Management.

For short the “Tribunal”

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent no.1 was appointed on probation as an Assistant Teacher by the appellant-Management with effect from 01st January, 2011, for a period of two years. On completion of probation, her services were approved by the respondent no.2- Education Officer on 18th October, 2013. The stand of the appellants is that the respondent no.1 had declared that she would not accept any payment for rendering services till the classes in which she was teaching (Standard 8 & 9) come on 100% grant-in-aid to be extended by the respondent no.2. It is also alleged that the appellant-Management used to pay honorarium to the respondent no.1, but the amount has not been quantified anywhere in the records. The critical date in the present case is 11th May, 2017, when as per the appellants the respondent no. 1 tendered her resignation, which was stated to have been despatched by her through a registered AD post on 12th May, 2017, and received in the office of the appellants on the very next day, i.e. on 13th May, 2017. On 16th May, 2017, the Managing Committee of the appellants accepted the resignation tendered by the respondent no.1 and intimated the acceptance to the respondent no.2 on the very next day, i.e. on 17th May, 2017. The acceptance of the resignation was communicated by the appellants to the respondent no.1 on 27th June, 2017.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the appellants, the respondent no.1 approached the Tribunal and filed an appeal stating inter alia that she had never tendered her resignation and that some blank papers that the Head Mistress of the appellant no.2 had made her sign, were misused. The Tribunal observed that the purported resignation letter dated 11th May, 2017, states that the respondent no.1 had tendered her resignation on the ground that she had not been receiving any salary from the Government. The plea taken by the appellants that the respondent no.1 had actually tendered her resignation because there were better prospects waiting for her outside, was turned down particularly, in the light of the fact that on 12th June, 2017 the respondent no.1 had filed a writ petition2 before the High Court seeking directions to the appellants herein to pay her the salary from the date of her appointment. Therefore, the Tribunal had arrived at a conclusion that once the respondent no.1 was herself raising a claim regarding non-payment of her salary before the High Court, there was no occasion for her to have tendered her resignation on the ground of non- payment of salary. The Tribunal also noticed the fact that after the School had reopened post the summer vacations, the respondent no.1 had attended school on 23rd June, 2017 and 27th June, 2017, but thereafter, she was not permitted to take the classes.

5. All the aforesaid facts were noticed by the High Court and were considered reason enough for it to have arrived at the conclusion that in the instant case, it did not appear that the respondent no.1 had voluntarily tendered her resignation and the balancing factors were more in her favour vis- a`- vis the appellants.

W.P. No. 3858/2017 6. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have extensively perused the records as available and on doing so, are inclined to concur with the findings returned by the High Court. Both, the Tribunal and the High Court have concurrently held that the resignation relied on by the appellants was not voluntary in nature and there was no good reason for the respondent no.1 to have tendered her resignation, when there were no better prospects waiting for her after leaving her job. Even today, we have interacted with the respondent no.1, who is present in Court and she has categorically stated that after she was removed from service by the appellants, she did not get any job thereafter and the position remains the same till date.

7. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment, which is accordingly upheld. The services of the respondent no.1 on the post of Assistant Teacher is accordingly restored w.e.f. 11th May, 2017. There shall be no break in her service and she shall be entitled to all the benefits at par with other similarly engaged Assistant Teachers, on the same scale of pay upon release of grant-in-aid by the State Government in favour of the appellant no.2, from the same date as granted to the other teachers.

8. The present appeal is dismissed while leaving the parties to bear their own expenses.

........……………………..........J.

[HIMA KOHLI]

............………………………...J. [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 11, 2024 ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.11 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7018/2021 AVATAR MEHARBABA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA ARVI (CHHOTTI) & ANR. APPELLANTS VERSUS MANISHA & ORS. RESPONDENTS Date : 11-01-2024 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH For Appellant(s) Mr. Sachin Patil, Adv.

Mr. Amit Bhate, Adv.

Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, AOR Mr. Sunil Kumar Sethi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Kishor Ram Lambat, Adv.

Ms. Kashmira Lambat, Adv.

Ms. Suja Joshi, Adv.

Ms. Rucha Mandiwale, Adv.

M/S. Lambat & Legiteam, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1. The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order, which is placed on the file.

2. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(POOJA SHARMA) (NAND KISHOR)

COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)