JUDGMENT

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal filed against order dated 28.9.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench is whether the appellant is entitled to wages for the period during which she was forcibly kept out of service by the management of the school.

3. The appellant was appointed as a teacher in Nandanvan Vidya Mandir (Primary School) run by a trust established and controlled by Bagade family. The grant in aid given by the State Government, which included rent for the building was received by Bagade family because the premises belonged to one of its members, namely, Shri Dulichand. In 2005, the Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad raised a tax bill of Rs.79,974/- by treating the property as commercial. Thereupon, the Headmistress of the school, who was also President of the Trust, addressed a letter to all the employees including the appellant requiring them to contribute a sum of Rs.1500/- per month towards the tax liability. The appellant refused to comply with the dictate of the Headmistress. Annoyed by this, the management issued as many as 25 memos to the appellant and then placed her under suspension vide letter dated 14.11.2006. She submitted reply to each and every memorandum and denied the allegations. Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad did not approve the appellant’s suspension. However, the letter of suspension was not revoked. She was not even paid subsistence allowance in terms of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short, ‘the Rules’) framed under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the Act’).

4. Writ Petition No.8404 of 2006 filed by the appellant questioning her suspension was disposed of by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court vide order dated 21.3.2007 and it was declared that the appellant will be deemed to have rejoined her duties from 14.3.2007 and entitled to consequential benefits in terms of Rule 37(2)(f) of the Rules and that the payment of arrears shall be the liability of the management. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of that order read as under:

“4. Considering the order we intend passing it is not necessary for us to deal with the rival contentions of the parties. That will be for the Inquiry Committee to decide. In view of the apprehensions expressed regarding the inquiry being dragged on unnecessarily, it is necessary to safeguard the interests of the petitioner as well.

5. In the circumstances, Rule is made absolute in the following terms.

i) The Inquiry Committee shall conclude the proceedings and pass a final order on or before 31.5.2007.

ii) The petitioner shall be at liberty to have her case represented by Smt. Sulbha Panditrao Munde.

iii) The petitioner/her representative shall appear, in the first instance, before the Inquiry Committee at 11 a.m. on 26.3.2007 and, thereafter, as directed by the Inquiry Committee.

iv) The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Rule 37 (2) (f) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, as specified in paragraph 11 of the order and judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Hamid Khan Nayyar s/o Habib Khan v. Education Officer, Amravati and others (supra). The petitioner shall be deemed to have rejoined the duties from 14.3.2007 and entitled to consequential benefits that would flow out of Rule 37 (2) (f). The payment of arrears shall be the liability of the management.”

5. In the meanwhile, the management issued notice dated 28.12.2006 for holding an inquiry against the appellant under Rules 36 and 37 of the Rules. The appellant nominated Smt. Sulbha Panditrao Munde to appear before the Inquiry Committee, but Smt. Munde was not allowed to participate in the inquiry proceedings. The Inquiry Committee conducted ex parte proceedings and the management terminated the appellant