Bombay High Court
NILESH S/O RAJARAM GULAVEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU CHIEF SECRETARY, SCHOOL AND EDU AND SPORT DEPT. AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that while the petitioner has been absorbed, the claim for salary arrears remains viable and must be considered, directing the respondents to entertain representation and decide the matter within the stipulated time.
Summary
The petitioner, Nilesh, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandatory absorption into an aided school and payment of salary under Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Employee of Private School (C of S) Regulation Act, 1977. The court noted that the petitioner had already been absorbed, leaving only the claim for salary arrears from November 2022 to the date of regularisation. The judges examined whether the respondents were obligated to pay those arrears and whether a mandamus order was appropriate. Relying on prior decisions of the court, they concluded that the salary claim remained open for determination. Accordingly, the court directed the management to submit a proposal for the arrears within two weeks and ordered the designated officer to decide the matter within eight weeks, granting a hearing to both parties. The petition and the interim application were disposed of without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to be absorbed in an aided school under Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Employee of Private School (C of S) Regulation Act, 1977.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary arrears from November 2022 until regularisation.
- Whether a writ of mandamus is the appropriate remedy for the salary claim.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Employee of Private School (C of S) Regulation Act, 1977 — s. Rule 27
Subjects
- Mandamus
- Absorption
- Salary arrears
- Maharashtra Employee of Private School Regulation Act
- Article 226
- Writ petition
- Public employment
Judgment
17-IA-7681-24.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1693 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7681 OF 2024
Nilesh s/o Rajaram Gulave …Petitioner/Applicant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thru Chief Secretary,
School And Edu And Sport Dept. And Ors ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Saurabh Pakale a/w. Mr. Nilesh Desai for Petitioner/Applicant.
Ms. Priyanka B. Chavan, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Kaustubh Thipsay a/w. Ms. Ketaki Gadkari and Mr. Nitin Kaskar for
Respondent No.5.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 16 SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for
substantive reliefs which read thus:
“B. By writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
direction like nature or order, the Respondent No.3 to 5 may
kindly be directed to absorb the service of Petitioner to any
aided School including the aided School run by Respondent
No.5, in view of Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Employee of
Private School (C of S) Regulation Act 1977 and further pay the
salary of Petitioner as per rule till the absorption.”
2. Learned counsel for the parties are at ad idem that the petitioner has already
Digitally signed
by RAJESHWARI
RAJESHWARI
SUBODH
KARVE
SUBODH
KARVE
Date:
been absorbed and the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the absorption is
2026.09.21
11:59:38 +0530
now no more required to be asserted by the petitioner in the present proceedings.
Page 1 of 2
rsk
17-IA-7681-24.DOC
As pointed out by Mr. Pakale the only issue would be with regard to the claim for
salary of the petitioner from November 2022 till the date of regularization. Mr.
Pakale submits that under the Rules, it would be the obligation of the respondent
to pay salary for that period. If that is so, the legal position in this regard is also no
more res integra in view of the decisions of this Court. We accordingly permit the
petitioner to make representation to the respondent seeking the arrears of salary. In
the event the Management is inclined to submit a proposal to that effect on the
ground that aid was available, let such proposal be made by the Management to the
Education Officer within a period of two weeks from today. If the same is made let
the same be considered and decided by the Designated Officer in accordance with
law and after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as also the
Management. All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open.
Let the decision accordingly be taken and in any event within a period of eight
weeks from the date of the proposal.
3. The Petition is accordingly disposed of on the aforesaid terms. No costs.
4. Interim Application also stands disposed of.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 2 of 2
rsk
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.