JUDGMENT - B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:---Heard Mr. Langote, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Divekar, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the learned A.G.P. for respondents Nos. 4 to 6. Leave to delete respondent No. 3 granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

2. Rule, learned Counsel for respondents waive service. Petitions taken up for final hearing forthwith by consent of the parties.

3. The petitioner holds the qualification of Master of Science with as additional Degree of Bachelor of Education. He belongs to the Other Backward Categories and is qualified to be appointed as trained teacher in a Secondary School. The respondent No. 1 Society is running a Secondary School at Taravade Wasti in Hadapsar which is a suburb of Pune City. It is a private recognized school and it runs classes from 5th to 10th standards. For the academic year 1998-99 the Government had accorded sanction as a fully aided school.

4. The petitioner came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher from 8th July, 1996 in the Madhyamik Vidyalaya at Hadapsar. The respondent No. 1 runs two other schools by name Sane Guruji Primary School at Malwadi and Sane Guruji Secondary School at Hadapsar. All the Schools are aided schools. It appears that respondent No. 3 also came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 9th July, 1996 i.e. one day later than the petitioner. In view of the increased strength of student the School had started some additional divisions and hence the requirement of additional teacher. The said additional divisions were initially not recognized and were subsequently recognized from the Academic Year 1998-1999. The petitioner alleges that the respondent No. 3 was not only shown senior to her but when the additional divisions were recognized by the Competent Authority, the name of the petitioner was not processed for approval and instead the name of respondent No. 3 was recommended by the respondent No. 1. In addition the petitioner alleged that she was not paid her monthly salary as per the prescribed pay scale as applicable to trained Assistant Teacher in the secondary School as set out in the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. She contended that she made various representations to the respondent No. 1 Management as well as the Education Officer and finally her seniority was properly shown above respondent No. 3 but she was not given the prescribed pay scale and in fact she was given a consolidated monthly salary. The petitioner has therefore sought direction from this Court against the respondent No. 1 for payment of salary as per the scale prescribed under the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 right from the day she has joined.

5. The respondent No. 1 Management has filed an affidavit in reply and opposed the petition. It has been contended that the petitioner had approached the management for appointment as an Assistant Teacher and she had agreed work on honorary basis till such time that the additional divisions were recognized by the Government as grant-in-aid. It is further contended that towards the end of October, 1996 the petitioner was informed that her services were not required from November, 1996 onwards and therefore she approached the Management with an undertaking that she would not ask for salary as per the prescribed scales provided she was given an opportunity to work as an Assistant Teacher till such time the additional divisions were recognized. The Management concedes that no formal appointment letter was given to the petitioner and she was paid salary at the rate of Rs. 1,250/- per month from the month of October, 1997 to May, 1998. Her salary was raised to Rs. 1,350/- per month for the period from June, 1990 to May, 1999 and here was a further revision to fix the salary at Rs. 1,485/- per month for the period from June 1999 to May 2000. The Management has disowned its ability to pay the arrears in salary on the b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document