The main legal point established in the judgment is that the liability for payment of back wages to a reinstated teacher of an aided school may fall on the State if the suspension had the imprimatur of the State, as specifically approved by the education department.

S.C. GUPTE, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule taken up forthwith for hearing by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

3. By an order passed by the school tribunal in an appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (“MEPS Act”) and Rules made thereunder, the school management, who is the Petitioner in this petition, was directed to reinstate Respondent No. 1 teacher with back wages. By an order passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Pune on 31 January 2018, salary grant payable towards back wages ordered by the school tribunal was refused to the school management. That order has been challenged in the present petition.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Respondent No. 1, was working as assistant teacher on a sanctioned post. The appointment was approved by Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune. On 16 December 2013, an offence was registered against Respondent No. 1, in pursuance of which he was in custody for more than 48 hours. A permission was, therefore, sought from the Education Department for suspension of Respondent No. 1. That permission was granted by Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune vide his letter dated 9 January 2014. A departmental enquiry was, thereafter, held against Respondent No. 1, in which, he was found guilty of the misconduct alleged. He was thereupon terminated from service vide order dated 30 April 2014. This termination was challenged by Respondent No. 1 in the present appeal (Appeal No. 14 of 2014). By its order dated 5 March 2016, the school tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the school management to reinstate the teacher with all consequential benefits and full back wages. This order was challenged by the Petitioner in a writ petition, Writ Petition (St.) No. 10335 of 2016. This court, by its order dated 11 July 2016, was pleased to dismiss that writ petition. A review petition from that order is said to be pending. Be that as it may, pursuant to the order of the school tribunal, Respondent No. 1 was reinstated in service with effect from 1 December 2016. On 1 February 2017, he was promoted to the post of Head Master. His promotion was approved by Education Officer. In pursuance of his reinstatement, Respondent No. 1 has been receiving regular salary from the grant payable to the school from 1 December 2016. The controversy in the present petition pertains to release of salary grant for payment of his back wages. It is the case of the school management, the Petitioner herein, that they sent revised pay bills for salaries payable to teachers and non-teaching staff of the school vide letter dated 29 March 2017 so as to include the differential back wages. This was followed by several reminder letters. It is the grievance of the school management that by a communication dated 31 January 2018, Respondent No. 2 took a position that salary difference payable to Respondent No. 1 during the period of his suspension, that is, from December 2013 to December 2016, should be paid by the Petitioner and not by the State. It is the case of the school management that since the teacher's suspension in the present case was after duly seeking permission of Education Officer, as per law stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Education Society, Tumsar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2016) 3 SCC 512, the salary difference payable for the period of suspension, that is, from December 2013 to December 2016, should be paid by the State as part of its grant in aid. It is submitted that for this period, no salary for the particular sanctioned post was paid to any other teacher; the post was vacant during the entire intervening period.

5. Learned AGP relies on the original order of this court in Writ Petition (St) No. 10335 of 2016, on the school management's challenge to the original order on appeal passed by the school tribunal. Learned AGP submits that this court, in its order dated 11 July 2016,