Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 1144
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.M. BORDE, V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
Shri Dilip Anandrao Pawar and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 6836 of 2016
Decided On : 03-08-2018
For the Petitioners: Mr. Saurabh Pakale, Mr. S.M. Katkar.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sandeep L. Babar.
Unjustified withholding of salary due to a pending criminal complaint against the office bearers of an institution does not constitute ground for withholding salaries receivable by the employees.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Salary Release - The court directed the respondents to release the arrears of salary receivable by the petitioners for the years 2007-2008 till December 2017, as the withholding of salary was found to be unjustified due to the acquittal of the chairman of the institution and the absence of any pending criminal case or complaint against the institution or its office bearers.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to release the salary receivable by them for the years 2007-2008 till December 2017, which had been withheld due to a pending criminal complaint against the office bearers of the institution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the withholding of the petitioners' salary was unjustified, as the criminal complaint was against the chairman of the institution in his personal capacity and not directed against the institution, and the chairman had been acquitted. The court directed the respondents to verify the arrears of salary and release them expeditiously.
Issues: The main issue was whether the withholding of the petitioners' salary due to a pending criminal complaint against the office bearers of the institution was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the withholding of the petitioners' salary was unjustified, as the criminal complaint was not directed against the institution and the chairman had been acquitted, thus there was no impediment for the respondents to release the salary receivable by the petitioners.
Final Decision: The court made the rule absolute and directed the respondents to verify the arrears of salary receivable by the petitioners for the years 2007-2008 till December 2017 and release the salary as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 4 months.
1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Mr. Sandeep L. Babar, Learned AGP waives service for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. By consent of parties, petition is taken up for final hearing.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to act upon the order passed on 31.3.2009 and release salary receivable by the petitioners with effect from 2007-2008 within the prescribed time. It is not a matter of dispute that the Petitioners are functioning as non teaching employees in Respondent No. 4 institution which is eligible to receive grant-in-aid. The Petitioners submits that though the institution has become eligible to receive 100% grant since 2007-2008 salary grant receivable by the institution and payable to the Petitioners has not been released since 2007 until the year 2018 on account of pendency of criminal complaint bearing FIR No. 3345/2013 recorded on 11.9.2013 against the office bearers of the institution registered at Yerwada Police Station, Pune for commission of offence punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1995.
3. Mr. Sandeep L. Babar, learned counsel for the Respondents contends that one of the condition for release of the salary grant is that there shall not be any pending prosecution or a complaint pending against the institution.
4. On perusal of FIR dated 11.9.2013 it transpires that there is FIR lodged against the Chairman of the institution in his personal capacity and same is not directed against the institution. Since the alleged criminal act is directed against the office bearers of the institution that in itself shall not constitute ground for withholding salaries receivable by the employees of the institution. It is further informed by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that Special Atrocity Case No. 9/2014 initiated against the chairman of the institution has resulted in his acquittal and as such at present there is neither any pending criminal case nor any other complaint against the institution or its office bearers and as such there shall be no impediment for the Respondents to release salary receivable by the Petitioners. The Petitioners contend that since January 2018 the employees are being paid regular salary. However, it is contended that the salary receivable by the employees during the academic year 2007-2008 onwards till December 2017 has not been released.
5. Considering the reasons as recorded above, we are of the opinion that impugned action of withholding the salary of employees of institution deserves to be quashed. We therefore direct the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to verify the claim of the Petitioners as regards the arrears of salary receivable by them for the year 2007-2008 till December 2017 and release salary receivable by them as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 4 months from today.
6. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.
