Bombay High Court

ASHOK DEVRAO SHENDGEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The court held that the petitioner is not entitled to subsistence allowance under Rule 34 because the suspension was not effected per Rule 35(1)(4) and the petitioner was absent, but allowed him to seek the allowance from the management.

Summary

The petitioner, a teacher, filed a contempt petition seeking subsistence allowance for the period of his suspension under Rule 34 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981. The State opposed, contending that the suspension was not conducted in accordance with Rule 35(1)(4) and that the petitioner was absent from school during the suspension, which disqualified him from the allowance. The court examined whether the procedural defect and the petitioner’s absence barred entitlement to the allowance. It concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to the subsistence allowance under the Rules but granted him liberty to make a representation to the school management for the same. The court directed the management to consider any such representation on its merits and to decide it within eight weeks, and disposed of the contempt petition.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to subsistence allowance during suspension under Rule 34 of the MEPS Rules, 1981 when suspension proceedings were not complied with under Rule 35(1)(4).
Whether the petitioner’s absence from school during the suspension period bars entitlement to the allowance.
Whether the contempt order can be complied with given the alleged legal impediment.

Subjects

subsistence allowance
suspension
contempt petition
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules
administrative law
public service

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37464-DB

                                                                         153.20CP

                                                1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          903 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.153 OF 2020
                                   IN WP/14692/2017

                                 ASHOK DEVRAO SHENDGE
                                         VERSUS
                          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                                 ...
                            Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Tapse
                           AGP for Respondent-State : Mr.S.J.Salgare
                      Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 : Mr.N.L.Jadhav
                                                 …

                                      CORAM :       SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
                                                    VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,JJ.

                                      DATE     :    18.08.2026
                 P.C. :


                 1]          Heard. The direction in this Petition is for paying

                 subsistence allowance to the petitioner during his period of

                 suspension according to the provisions under Rule 34 of the

                 Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools [Conditions of

                 Service] Regulation Rules, 1981. However, the learned AGP

                 strongly opposed the petition on the ground that the

                 concerned Education Officer [Secondary], Zilla Parishad,

                 Beed, vide it’s letter dated 15th February, 2021, has already

                 observed that since the respondent management has not

                 carried out suspension proceedings as per the Rule 35 (1) (4)
                                                          153.20CP

                                 2

of the MEPS Rules, 1981, sanction for paying subsistence

allowance to the petitioner cannot be granted. Further the

learned counsel for the respondent-management by pointing

out   the   affidavit-in-reply   submitted   that   though   the

petitioner was suspended from 31 st July, 2017, but he did

not remain present in the school during suspension period,

and therefore, as per Rule 34 quoted in the order under

contempt, the petitioner is not entitled to get subsistence

allowance even from the respondent management since it

was subjected directly due to absence of the petitioner

himself from duty. Under such circumstances, when there is

legal impediment in complying order under contempt, we

deem it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to make

proper representation for getting subsistence allowance from

the respondent – management as per order under contempt.



2]          In view of the same, we dispose of this Contempt

Petition, with liberty as aforesaid.



3]          It is made clear that if such representation is filed

by the petitioner, the respondent-management shall consider

it on it’s own merits and shall make an endeavour to decide
                                                    153.20CP

                            3

the same expeditiously and as far as possible within eight

[08] weeks.




[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV]         [SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE]
        JUDGE                        JUDGE


DDC

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…