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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 376

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV
NAMRATA RAMCHANDRA ZAGADE – Appellant
Versus
SHRI. GUJARATI SHIKSHAN PRACHARAK MANDAL PUNE AND ORS – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

What is the legality of terminating an employee in MEPS Act cases without a proper inquiry and due process? What are the appropriate remedies when termination is held illegal (reinstatement with back wages vs compensation in lieu of reinstatement) under MEPS Act? What are the limits of claiming permanency or reinstatement for appointments made not strictly in accordance with Section 5 of the MEPS Act and Rules?

What is the legality of terminating an employee in MEPS Act cases without a proper inquiry and due process?

What are the appropriate remedies when termination is held illegal (reinstatement with back wages vs compensation in lieu of reinstatement) under MEPS Act?

What are the limits of claiming permanency or reinstatement for appointments made not strictly in accordance with Section 5 of the MEPS Act and Rules?


2026:BHC-AS:5405 Ajay IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3076 OF 2022 Namrata Ramchandra Zagade .. Petitioner Versus Shri. Gujrati Shikshan Pracharak Mandal, Pune & Ors. .. Respondents ....................

 Mr. Vivek M. Punjabi a/w Mr. Priyansh R. Jain, Advocates for Petitioner.

 Mr. Shubham Misar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 10.

 Ms. Vaishali Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.11 and 12 – State.

......…...........

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE: : FEBRUARY 03, 2026 JUDGMENT:

1. Present Petition impugns judgment dated 01.02.2022 passed by the School Tribunal, Pune whereby Appeal filed by Appellant (Petitioner herein) against her termination dated 06.03.2019 was partially allowed declaring her termination as illegal. Respondent No.1 – Management was directed to pay six months salary as compensation to Petitioner in lieu of reinstatement within a period of 30 days.

2. Briefly stated, present dispute pertains to illegal termination of service of Petitioner who was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Respondent No.7 – School and who rendered uninterrupted service for more than nine years prior to her termination dated 06.03.2019.

2.1

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top