Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 1933
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Ravindra V. Ghuge, Sanjay A. Deshmukh, JJ.
Mohammed Mussaviruddin - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 6452 of 2021
Decided On : 08-02-2023
Vivek Dhage, Advocate, P.S. Patil, Advocate, K.S. Chavan, Advocate, V.M. Maney, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
An employee who voluntarily retires and accepts retirement benefits cannot later claim coercion without formally challenging the retirement; minority institutions have the right to appoint staff, but such appointments must comply with governmental regulations.
Headnote:
Writ Jurisdiction - Education Law - Article 30 of the Constitution of India, AIR 1964 SC 477, 2003(6) SCC 675 - The court discussed the right of minority educational institutions to administer their affairs, particularly the appointment of a Headmaster, under Article 30 of the Constitution. It emphasized that once an employee opts for voluntary retirement and accepts benefits, they cannot later claim coercion without challenging the retirement. The court found that the Education Officer's refusal to approve the petitioner's reinstatement was justified, as allowing such reinstatement based on a private arrangement would undermine the integrity of public funding and create uncertainty in employment. The court upheld the Education Officer's decision as consistent with established legal principles.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner voluntarily retired under alleged threat from management, was relieved from service, and later sought reinstatement, which was granted by the management. However, the Education Officer declined to approve this reinstatement, leading to the petitioner's challenge in court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had accepted his retirement and benefits without protest, and his claim of coercion was not substantiated. The court held that the Education Officer's refusal to approve the reinstatement was valid and necessary to maintain the integrity of public funding and employment practices.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was coerced into voluntary retirement and if the Education Officer's refusal to approve his reinstatement was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that once an employee accepts voluntary retirement and its benefits, they cannot later claim coercion without formally challenging the retirement. The management's right to appoint staff, particularly in minority institutions, is protected under Article 30 of the Constitution, but such rights do not extend to reinstating an employee without proper governmental approval.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged, affirming the Education Officer's decision not to approve the petitioner's reinstatement.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner has put forth prayer clause B, C and D as under :-
<WXY>"B. By issuing Writ of Certiorari or orders or any other writ in the nature of writ of certiorari, the impugned order dtd. 30/4/2021 passed by respondent No.2, Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Parbhani may kindly be quashed and set aside;
C. By issuing Writ of Mandamus or orders or any other writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, the respondent No.2 Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Parbhani may kindly be directed to grant approval to the petitioner to the post of Headmaster of Dr.Zakir Hussain High School, Sailu, Tq. Sailu, Dist. Parbhani in view of proposal dtd. 4/1/2021 ;
D. By issuing writ of mandamus or orders or any other writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, the respondents may kindly be directed not to relieve the petitioner from the post of Head Master of Dr.Zakir Hussain High School, Sailu, Tq.Sailu, Dist.Parbhani."</WXY>
3. We have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the learned AGP on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 / Education Department and Mr. Chavan, the learned Advocate for respondent No.3.
4. This is a peculiar case wherein the petitioner claims that he opted for a voluntary retirement, purportedly under a threat from the Management, by submitting an application on 15/5/2019. On 31/7/2019, he was relieved from service in terms of his application seeking voluntary retirement. He returned back to the Management in January 2021 praying for reinstatement. The Management obliged him by reinstating him w.e.f. 4/1/2021. The proposal of his reinstatement was forwarded to the Education Officer for approval alongwith the representation of the Management dtd. 22/2/2021. By the impugned order dtd. 30/4/2021, the Education Officer declined to grant approval for the reinstatement of the petitioner. The Establishment in which the petitioner was reinstated, receives salary grants.
5. The contention of the petitioner is that though he was relieved on 31/7/2019, the Management voluntarily reinstated him on 4/1/2021. This arrangement is between the petitioner and the Management. If the Management is reinstating the petitioner, the Education Officer can not have any objection.
6. The Management has filed an affidavit in reply, through the Secretary dtd. 17/8/2021, specifically contending that the petitioner opted for voluntary retirement and gave a notice period of 3 months. It is denied that the management ever threatened the Petitioner and compelled him to opt for a retirement or face termination. On 31/7/2019, after 3 months notice period was over, the application was accepted and the petitioner was relieved. On 8/12/2020, he made a representation, which was considered sympathetically and a resolution was passed by the management on 26/12/2020, agreeing to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Head Master. Article 30 of the Constitution of India permits the Educational Institution to administer it's education.
7. The Education Officer has filed an affidavit in reply dtd. 1/2/2022 contending therein that after the petitioner opted for voluntary retirement, all his retiral benefits were cleared by the Department. He was paid the gratuity amount of Rs.7,93,100.00, commutation amount of Rs.15,17,215.00 and he has been receiving pension on month to month basis @ Rs.36,050.00. It is further stated that once a person has opted for voluntary retirement, and has availed of all the benefits payable as per the service conditions, without a demur, a private arrangement between the Management and such a candidate, to again bring him back in employment and put him on the post of Head Master, is without the sanction of the Government.
8. The petitioner has relied upon a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ariane Orgachem Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Wyeth Employees Union and oth
