Claims for salary arrears must be timely; however, recurring claims may be exempt from strict limitation rules.

JUDGMENT :

[Shailesh P. Brahme, J.]:

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of both sides.

2. The petitioner is challenging letter/order dated 04.08.2022 passed by respondent no. 3 – Education Officer, holding the respondent no. 4 entitled to receive salary from the date of appointment on unaided post and the direction issued to disburse the salary to him by adjusting the amount already paid.

3. The respondent no. 4 was appointed as ‘Assistant Teacher’ on unaided post by the petitioners on 21.06.2013. His services were approved by the respondent no. 3 – Education Officer, vide order dated 31.12.2013. As the Management failed to pay salary, the respondent no. 4 approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 1398/2021. It was disposed of by order dated 01.04.2022 by directing the Education Officer to consider the grievance of the petitioner. The respondent no. 4 approached the Education Officer with a claim of unpaid salary and the hearing was conducted in that regard. By impugned communication, the claim of respondent no. 4 was allowed which is a cause for the petitioners to file this petition.

4. Learned counsel Mr. S.R. Barlinge for the petitioners submits that the respondent no. 4 was not entitled to salary as his appointment was on fixed pay. It is further submitted that the claim was barred by time and for that purpose reliance is placed on judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Others Versus Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648. It is contended that he was not qualified and entitled to be continued.

5. The submissions of the petitioners are contested by the respondent no. 4. He has filed Affidavit-in-reply. It is contended that respondent no. 4 was entitled to receive amount of Rs. 29,71,391/- and he was only paid Rs. 1,29,800/-. It is submitted that after extending opportunity of hearing, Education Officer passed the impugned order. It is submitted that the cause of action is recurring and the claim is not time barred.

6. It is contended by the respondent no. 4 that he was terminated from the services on 13.12.2022. He preferred Appeal No. 1 of 2023 challenging the termination and thus he is entitled to receive the arrears for the work rendered upto 13.12.2022.

7. The respondent no. 4 was terminated on 13.12.2022. Against termination, he has preferred appeal which is pending before School Tribunal, Nasik. Though there was interim order passed by the Tribunal, subsequently it was vacated by the High Court. His appeal is pending and he is out of service presently. While granting interim stay, the petitioners were directed to deposit amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs in this Court. Interim stay to the impugned order is operating and the petitioners have deposited the amount in this Court as per the direction.

8. The respondent no. 4 was appointed on 21.06.2013. His services were approved on unaided post by the Education Officer vide order dated 31.12.2013. From 21.06.2013 till 13.12.2022, he worked with the petitioners. He was paid an amount of Rs. 1,29,800/- so far. There is nothing on the record to show that respondent no. 4 was being paid in accordance with law. 9. By the direction of High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 1398 of 2021 enquiry was conducted by the respondent no. 3/Education Officer, for deciding claim of respondent no. 4 of unpaid salary. Petitioner no. 1/Management was given opportunity of hearing and thereafter, impugned order was passed. There is no serious dispute about the fact that only an amount of Rs. 1,29,800/- was paid to respondent no. 4. Respondent no. 4 was held to be entitled to Rs. 27,61,553/- from June 2013 to 31.05.2020.

10. Respondent no. 4 submitted the breakup of his claim of arrears till his termination. The total claim is to the tune of Rs. 39,71,391/-. The issue which calls for our adjudication is as to whether respondent no. 4 is entitled to claim arrears from June 2013.

11. The arrears of salary is a monetary claim. Respondent no. 4 was not being paid i