SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Bom) 1116

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, GOA
Prakash D. Naik, Bharat P. Deshpande, JJ.
Mr. Vithal Kashinath Naik - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Goa and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 235 of 2012
Decided On : 12-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. J.E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate Amicus Curiae with Mr. Sagar Rivonkar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Susan Linhares, Additional Government Advocate, Mr. A.D. Bhobe a/w Ms. S. Shaikh, Advocate

The Petitioner is entitled to backwages and benefits from 17.01.1998 to 04.02.2010 due to unjustified non-payment and lack of substantiated misconduct.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984 - Section 7(2) - Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986 - Claim for backwages, bonus, and leave encashment from 17.01.1998 to 04.02.2010 - Petitioner appointed as Laboratory Attendant, contended wrongful assignment of duties and non-payment of salary - Respondent No.2 concluded that non-payment was unjustifiable and the Petitioner was entitled to backwages. (Paras 21, 29, 30)

(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Lengthy inquiry process and lack of timely action by management - Major penalty proposed but not approved, minor penalty set aside - Petitioner’s absence from duty not substantiated. (Paras 11, 28)

(C) Res Judicata - Previous petition withdrawn does not bar subsequent claims for salary. (Paras 15, 26)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, appointed as Laboratory Attendant, claimed backwages and benefits after being wrongfully assigned sweeping duties and facing prolonged disciplinary inquiries without resolution.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Petitioner was entitled to backwages and benefits from 17.01.1998 to 04.02.2010 due to unjustified non-payment and lack of substantiated misconduct.

Issues: The main issues included the legality of the duties assigned to the Petitioner, the justification for withholding salary, and the implications of previous petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Petitioner’s designation and duties were not aligned with the assignments given, and the prolonged inquiry without resolution constituted a failure of due process.

Result: Rule is made absolute in favor of the Petitioner, granting backwages and benefits.

JUDGMENT :

Prakash D. Naik, J.

The Petitioner has approached this Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner is seeking directions to grant backwages with bonus and leave encashment from 17.01.1998 to 04.01.2010 with implementation of 6th Pay and 7th Pay commission of Government of Goa and challenges the order dated 15.10.2012 passed by Respondent No.2.'

2. The Petitioner applied for appointment in the school of Respondent No.3 vide application dated 18.04.1988 for the post of Peon. The Petitioner was selected by Respondent No.3 for appointment as Laboratory Attendant in the school. The selection was forwarded to Respondent No.2 for approval vide letter dated 10.06.1988. Vide communication dated 28.06.1988 issued by Assistant Director of Education, the approval of Respondent No.2 to the appointment of Petitioner as Laboratory Attendant in the school was granted. By appointment order dated 01.07.1988 the Petitioner was appointed as a Laboratory Attendant in the school of Respondent No.3. Vide Circular dated 26.05.1992, the Assistant Director Education called upon Principals of all non governmental higher secondary schools to send information to Respondent No.2 about the number of Laboratory/Library Attendants working in each higher secondary school in the pay scale of 750-950 with the date of appointment as Library/Laboratory Attendant with details of amount towards arrears payable to them by virtue of their pay fixation in the revised pay-scale of Rs.800-1150 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 or from the date of their appointment as Laboratory/Library Attendant, whichever was later. By letter dated 12.07.1993, the Respondent No.3 stated that they had appointed Laboratory/ Library Attendants to work in the Laboratory/Library and not as Peon in the pay scale of Rs.750-940 and requested to upgrade the salary of Laboratory Attendants of the School from existing pay-scale of Rs.750-12-870-14-940 to the pay-scale of Rs.800-1150 with effect from 01.01.1986. According to the Petitioner, his pay-scale was updated and arrears of salary in this regard were paid to him.

3. By Circular dated 25.11.1996, the Headmaster/Principal of the School fixed a common work schedule/time-table for all class- IV employees including the Petitioner and assigned them common duties like maintenance of the store room as and when required and as also to do work as per the time-table and to perform other duties in terms of work allotted to them by Headmaster. The Petitioner contends that this circular sought to club all Class-IV employees of the school into one common category for assigning them common duties and jobs irrespective of the nature of their appointment, the substantive post occupied them and the duties and jobs appurtenant thereto. This clubbing of class-IV employees into one category was arbitrary, illegal and not in conformity with provisions of the Act and Rules. The circular allotted to the Petitioner, a Laboratory Attendant, the duties of sweeping and washing the corridors and class-rooms of the school.

4. According to the Petitioner as Laboratory Attendant he was only required to perform the functions such as to help the Laboratory Assistants and the teachers set up apparatus for experiments proposed for practical work, to help the assistants to maintain the apparatus and laboratories in order, to wash and clean the tables, apparatus after the experiments are done by the students and replace the apparatus in place etc.

5. It was not his duty to sweep the class rooms and hence the Petitioner did not perform this duty of sweeping the class-rooms. Communication dated 03.10.1997 was issued to the Petitioner by Principal of school directing the Petitioner to be regular in the duties of sweeping the class-rooms with warning that action would be taken against him if he did not do the work. Vide letter dated 14.11.1997 issued by the Principal of the school, the Petitioner was again accused of failing to sweep the class-rooms on 11.11.1997

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top