PRESIDENT CHAIRMAN INAYAT EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH EDUCATION OFFICER SECONDARY AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:37915



                                                              (1)                                928 WP 10282 OF 2023


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                    928 WRIT PETITION NO. 10282 OF 2023

           1.      President/Chairman,
                   Inayat Education Society
                   Inayat Nagar Parbhani,
                   Tq. Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani

           2.      Head Mistress,
                   Maulana Abul Kalam Azad
                   Urdu High School,
                   Inayat Nagar Parbhani,
                   Tq. Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.                                             …..PETITIONERS

                   VERSUS

           1.      The State Of Maharashtra
                   Through Education Officer (Secondary)
                   Zilla Parishad Parbhani.

           2.      Sayyed Athar Sayyed Aajam,
                   Age : 36 years, Occu.: Nil.
                   R/o. Kadrabad Plot (Rajnagar)
                   at post Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.                                            ….RESPONDENTS

           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Mr. K. M. Nagarkar, Advocate for the Petitioners
           Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent No.1 – State
           Mr. R. J. Godbole, Advocate for Respondent No.2
           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       CORAM          : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                                       DATE           : 19.08.2026

           JUDGMENT :-

           .                Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties,

           the petition is heard for final disposal.
                                     (2)                      928 WP 10282 OF 2023


2.          It is not in dispute that respondent No.2/employee was lawfully

appointed as a Watchman under the service of the present petitioner – school

management. The competent authority i.e. the Education Officer has also

accorded approval to the services of respondent No.2/employee. It appears

that subsequently some differences occurred between respondent No.2 and

the petitioner – school management which resulted into otherwise termination

dated 15.02.2011. The respondent/employee contended that by verbal

termination, he was prevented from attending the school which is termed as

an oral termination.


3.          Feeling aggrieved thereby, the employee approached the School

Tribunal under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977. The respondent –

management caused its appearance and defended the appeal by filing a

written statement. The sole contention of the respondent – management was

that the employee himself had abandoned the services and it was not the case

that at any point of time, the management prevented him from joining the

services. Thus, attributing the entire liability to the employee, the school –

management submitted that the appeal itself was not maintainable before the

Tribunal. So far as the lawfulness of the appointment and approval is

concerned, there was no dispute raised by the school – management before

the Tribunal. After hearing the parties at length and after going through the
                                       (3)                     928 WP 10282 OF 2023


record produced before it, the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal

arrived at a conclusion that the management had terminated the petitioner’s

services with effect from 15.02.2011 by way of oral termination. Accordingly,

the oral termination was set aside. The appeal was allowed. The petitioner

was directed to reinstate the employee in service with full back wages. As

against this, the petitioners are before this Court.


4.           During the proceedings, it is apprised to this Court that the

employee/respondent No.2 has resigned from the services and he is no more

with the petitioner – school management. Now, the only issue remains as

regards the payment of back wages and submission of pension papers to the

Zilla Parishad authorities at the hands of the management. To deny the back

wages, Mr. K. M. Nagarkar, learned Advocate for the petitioners vehemently

submits that the management right from inception, submitted that it was a

case of voluntary abandonment of the services and the School Tribunal has not

looked into this aspect of the matter correctly. It is again sought to be

submitted by Mr. Nagarkar that the petitioner in fact ought to have

approached the authorities if his case was that he was prevented from joining

the duty and signing the muster roll. He would submit that the muster roll was

produced before the Tribunal and yet the School Tribunal did not look into the

said muster roll. With this submission, Mr. Nagarkar submits that the petition
                                     (4)                        928 WP 10282 OF 2023


be allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal be set aside.


5.          Mr. R. J. Godbole, learned Advocate for respondent No.2 would

support the findings recorded by the School Tribunal. He would submit that in

fact, it was the duty of the management to show that the petitioner was

voluntarily absent from the duty. It is his further submission that since the

employee has voluntarily resigned from the services, there would be no

impediment for the school management to prepare and send the pension

proposal of the resigned employee. His main concern is about the back wages

to which the employee is entitled. Mr. Godbole would conclude his arguments

with the submission that, on merits, there is no case for the school

management in this writ petition and hence directions be issued to the

management for granting back wages and submitting his pension papers.


6.          Learned AGP submits that since the employee who was appointed

on regular pay scale, was terminated without conducting any enquiry. Hence,

in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Educational Society, Tumsar and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others ,

reported at 2016 3 Supreme Court Cases 512, it is the duty of the

management to pay the back wages for such period.
                                      (5)                       928 WP 10282 OF 2023


7.          I have heard the learned Advocates for both the parties at length.

I have perused the case papers produced before me. Although it is the

contention of the petitioners that the petitioners had voluntarily abandoned

the services, the School Tribunal discarded this argument by recording that

there is no document. With this finding, paragraph 9 is reproduced as below:


            “There are no documents on record produced by the
            respondent Nos.1 and 2 to show that the appellant
            remained himself absent from the school and he was
            voluntarily abandoned his duties. The respondent Nos.1
            and 2 have not produced muster roll to show that the
            appellant was absent on the duties.”


8.          It is abundantly clear that the petitioner – management miserably

failed not only to prevail before the School Tribunal but also before this Court

to make out a case of voluntary abandonment of services at the behest of the

respondent – employee. The findings of the Tribunal also reveal that no

document i.e. muster roll was filed by the management before the Tribunal to

show that the petitioner was voluntarily absent for a certain period. May it be

even if, assuming that the petitioner was out of service for a certain period

illegally, the management ought to have at least issued a show-cause notice to

the petitioner on that count. Even if muster roll could be produced, it comes

from the custody of the petitioner – management. Hence it could not be a

conclusive proof of absence of an employee.
                                       (6)                        928 WP 10282 OF 2023


9.           Mr. Nagarkar, learned Advocate for the petitioners would rely on

the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Kumari Meena vs. T. R.

Patil Vidyalaya, reported at 2014 SCC Online BOM 1541. Mr. Nagarkar made

an endeavour to impress upon this Court that if an employee remains

voluntarily absent from the services, the action for conducting an enquiry may

not arise. I do not find any reason to disagree with such legal proposition.

However, the facts are quite different. The law would be applicable only if the

facts arise. In the case in hand, the petitioner – management failed to produce

on record anything to show that the employee had voluntarily remained

absent from the services despite any call by the management. Hence, with due

respect, I observe that the cited case may not be of any avail to the petitioner.


10.          My attention is also invited by Mr. Nagarkar to the order passed

by this Court dated 22.03.2022 in Writ Petition No.8897 of 2016 filed by the

present respondent No.2 in this Court. The writ petition was filed at the behest

of the respondent – employee whose application seeking condonation of delay

was rejected by the School Tribunal. This Court allowed the writ petition,

condoned the delay and directed the School Tribunal to register the appeal

and to hear it on merits. In the operative order at clause (a) of paragraph 9,

this Court observed as below:
                                        (7)                        928 WP 10282 OF 2023


             “Considering that 30 days is the limitation from the date
             of the cause of action, if the petitioner eventually
             succeeds in his appeal, he would be deprived of the back
             wages from 15.03.2011 till August, 2015 in the light of
             the impugned order having been delivered on
             03.09.2015. However, continuity in service would be
             granted.”

      The said order remains intact. Obviously, while granting back wages,

this order will prevail over. For the reasons recorded above, I find that the

petitioner could not make out a case for interference by this Court under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the petition fails.


11.          The impugned order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the learned

Presiding Officer School Tribunal, Latur in appeal no.11 of 2022 is confirmed.


12.          Within two months from today, the petitioner – school

management shall submit a comprehensive pension proposal including all the

claims which the respondent – employee is entitled and shall submit the same

to the appropriate authority. The Education Officer shall, within one month

from the date of receipt of the proposal, release the pension and pensionary

benefits.


13.          So also, within two months from today, the petitioner –

management shall pay the arrears of the salary and backwages to the

respondent – employee till the date of his reinstatement keeping in mind the
                                     (8)                    928 WP 10282 OF 2023


order passed by this Court at clause (a) of paragraph 9 in Writ Petition

No.8897 of 2016.


14.        Writ Petition stands dismissed in above terms.


15.        Rule stands discharged.




                                                [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
PRW