SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
MAHARASHTRA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA & ANR. - Appellants
VERSUS
DILIP GANPATRAO LANJEWAR & ANR. - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.757 OF 2008
Decided on : 22-03-2017.
Appointment - Teacher - The court held that the respondent, initially appointed for a fixed period, was entitled to continuance in the school as it was an appointment against a permanent vacancy. The court also ruled that the respondent should be reinstated in service with all service benefits except backwages.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was initially appointed for a period of 10 months, then discontinued from service. The respondent challenged the discontinuance before the School Tribunal, which ruled in favor of the respondent. The appellant pursued the matter before the High Court and the Division Bench, leading to this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's appointment was against a permanent vacancy, entitling the respondent to continuance in the school. The court directed the respondent's reinstatement with all service benefits except backwages.
Issues: Discontinuance of teacher's service, entitlement to reinstatement and service benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The respondent, initially appointed for a fixed period, was entitled to continuance in the school as it was an appointment against a permanent vacancy.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with directions to reinstate the respondent in service with all service benefits except backwages.
JUDGMENT :
KURIAN, J.
1. Respondent No. 1 was appointed initially for a period of 10 months i.e. from 01.07.1990 to 30.04.1991. After a period of two months (apparently summer vacation), the respondent was again appointed as teacher for a period of 10 months. Thereafter, he was discontinued from service.
2. The respondent challenged the same before the School Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the discontinuance was illegal. Therefore, an order was passed to reinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits.
3. The same was challenged by the appellant – Management before the High Court. The writ petition was dismissed. The appellant still pursued the matter before the Division Bench in an intra-court appeal. The appeal was also dismissed. Hence, this appeal.
4. Mr. A. V. Mohta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, placing heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in Hindustan Education Society and Anr. Vs. S. K. Kaleem S. K. Gulam Nabi and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1971 of 1997) dated 10.03.1997, submits that the respondent having accepted an appointment for a fixed period, cannot claim continuance in the school. However, on the facts, we find that it was an appointment against a permanent vacancy, which is not disputed either before the Tribunal or before the High Court.
5. In that view of the matter, we are also of the view that the High Court has rightly distinguished the case of Hindustan Education Society (supra) with the present case.
6. The respondent has been out of service since 1992. We are informed that he would be otherwise due to superannuate in the year 2019. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this is a case where the respondent should not be granted the backwages and except that, he should be entitled to all other service benefits. Therefore, this appeal is disposed of with the following directions :
(i) The interim order granted by this Court is vacated.
(ii) The respondent shall be reinstated in service forthwith.
(iii) The respondent shall be entitled to all service benefits including continuity of service for all purposes, except the actual backwages for the period he has not worked in the school.
No costs.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.