Bombay High Court

MAHADEV DAMU KHAPEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND ORS

Decided: 16 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court quashed the Education Officer’s order and held that the State must pay the back wages as directed by the School Tribunal.

Summary

The petitioners, two permanent assistant teachers, challenged an order dated 4 July 2023 by the Education Officer that denied them back wages on a No Work‑No Pay basis, despite a School Tribunal having set aside their unlawful terminations and directing reinstatement with back wages. The Tribunal’s orders were not contested by the State and were incorporated into consent minutes that required the Education Officer to process the back wages. The petitioners argued that the State, as the grant‑in‑aid provider, is responsible for disbursing the arrears, while the State contended that the teachers were not in service during the period. The Court examined precedents holding that the government must pay arrears when termination is declared illegal and the posts remain vacant. It concluded that the Education Officer’s refusal was untenable, quashed the impugned order, and directed payment of the back wages within six weeks. The writ petitions were allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the State Government, through the Education Officer, is liable to pay back wages to teachers whose termination was declared illegal by a competent tribunal.
Whether the principle of No Work‑No Pay applies when the termination is held unlawful and the vacancy remained unfilled.
Whether the Education Officer’s order dated 4 July 2023 is ultra vires and must be set aside.

Subjects

back wages
No Work‑No Pay
grant‑in‑aid
reinstatement
school tribunal
education officer
state liability
aided schools
wrongful termination

Judgment

Digitally
signed by
AJIT

15_WP_14132_2023.DOC
AJIT RAMESH
RAMESH PATHRIKAR
PATHRIKAR Date:
2026.09.28
18:17:40
+0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 14132 OF 2023

Priti Vijay Chaure ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra
thr. Ministry Of Education & Ors. ...Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14204 OF 2023

Mahadev Damu Khape ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra
thr. Ministry Of Education & Ors. ...Respondents
_______

Ms Manjiri Parasnis a/w Shrushti Kale for Petitioners.
Mr V. G. Badgujar, AGP a/w, P. P. Kakade, AGP a/w K. S. Thorat, ‘B’ Panel for
Respondent-State.
Mr Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate, a/w Rajesh Satpalkar, Aazmin Bachana i/b
Mulla and Mulla and Craigie Blunt and Caroe for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
_______

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATE: 16th SEPTEMBER 2026

P.C.

1. Both petitions involve an identical issue; hence, both are being decided by

this common order.

2. The Petitioners seek to quash and set aside the order dated 4 th July 2023

passed by Respondent No. 2, Education Officer (Secondary), whereby the

Education Officer has held the Petitioners as not entitled to their salaries for the

Page 1 of 12
Ajit Pathrikar
15_WP_14132_2023.DOC

period between 4th April 2014 and 18th May 2023 on the principle of No Work –

No Pay.

Facts in Writ Petition No. 14132 of 2023

3. The Petitioner is an Assistant Teacher at Respondent No. 4 - School and is a

permanent employee. Respondent No. 3 is the Trust that runs Respondent No. 4

School and receives a 100% grant-in-aid. The Petitioner's services were terminated

on 15th January 2015 on the basis of a forced resignation dated 12 th January 2015.

She challenged the termination before the School Tribunal, Pune, by filing Appeal

No. 23 of 2019. By Judgment and Order dated 25 th February 2020, the School

Tribunal set aside the termination order with effect from 12 th January 2015. The

School Tribunal also directed Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to reinstate the Petitioner

along with 50% back wages. Respondent No. 2 did not challenge the said order.

The orders passed by the School Tribunal read thus:-

“ORDER

The Appeal is allowed as under:-

1. The impugned order of otherwise termination of the appellant w.e.f.
12/01/2015 by the hands of respondent no.1 management on the basis of
forceful resignation is hereby declared as illegal and same is quashed and set
aside.

2. The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 is hereby directed to reinstated the appellant on
her original post with 50% back wages, continuity of service and
consequential benefits within a period of 1 month from the date of this
Judgment and order.

3. Parties shall bear their own costs.

Judgment dictated and pronounced in Open Court.”

4. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 assailed the School Tribunal’s order before this

Court by filing Writ Petition No. 4770 of 2022. After hearing counsel for the

Page 2 of 12
Ajit Pathrikar
15_WP_14132_2023.DOC

parties, learned Single Judge of this Court, in his Order dated 4 th May 2023,

recorded that the parties had reached an amicable resolution and signed the

Minutes of Order. It is pertinent to note that the Education Officer was not a party

to the Minutes of Order on which Writ Petition No. 4770 of 2022 was disposed

of.

Facts in Writ Petition No. 14204 of 2023

5. The Petitioner is an Assistant Teacher at Respondent No. 4 School and a

permanent employee. Respondent No. 3 is the Trust that runs Respondent No. 4

School and receives a 100% grant-in-aid. The Petitioner's services were terminated

on 15th April 2015, based on an enquiry report dated 11 th March 2015. He

challenged the termination before the School Tribunal, Pune, by filing Appeal No.

20 of 2015. By Judgment and Order dated 26 th August 2019, the School Tribunal

set aside the termination order with effect from 15 th April 2015. The School

Tribunal also directed Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to reinstate the Petitioner with full

back wages. Respondent No. 2 did not challenge the said order.

6. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 assailed the School Tribunal’s order before this

Court by filing Writ Petition No. 11229 of 2019. After hearing counsel for the

parties, learned Single Judge, in his Order dated 4 th May 2023, recorded that the

parties had reached an amicable resolution and signed the Minutes of Order.

Neither the Education Officer nor the State was a party to the Minutes of Order on

which Writ Petition No. 11229 of 2019 was disposed of.

7. The grievance of both the Petitioners is that, despite the directions given by

Page 3 of 12
Ajit Pathrikar
15_WP_14132_2023.DOC

the School Tribunal and the disposal of the Writ Petitions, Respondent No. 2, the

Educational Officer, has failed to disburse their salaries for the period during which

they were wrongly terminated. According to the Petitioners, the responsibility for

disbursing their salaries squarely falls on the State, as Respondent No. 4, the

school, is fully aided by the Government. They also allege that the management

has refused to co-operate and assist the Petitioners in facilitating the State’s

disbursement of their salaries. The Petitioners exchanged various communications

with Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 2, requesting them to act in aid of the

School Tribunal’s order directing the disbursement of their back wages. However,

by the letter dated 4th July 2023, the Education Officer decided not to disburse

their salaries on the principle of No Work – No Pay, completely ignoring that their

termination was set aside by the School Tribunal as illegal and that Respondent

Nos. 2 to 4 were directed to reinstate the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 14132 of

2023 in service with 50% back wages, and the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.

14204 of 2023 in service with full back wages, and other consequential reliefs. The

Petitioners assail this decision of Respondent No. 2 – Education Officer, in the

present Writ Petitions.

8. Heard Ms Manjiri Parasnis, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners,

Mr V. G. Badgujar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

Respondent No. 1 - State, and Mr Girish Godbole, learned Senior Advocate,

appearing for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

9. Ms Parasnis submitted that Respondent No. 2 failed to recognise that

Page 4 of 12
Ajit Pathrikar
15_WP_14132_2023.DOC

Respondent No. 3 – Trust/Management had unconditionally withdrawn all

allegations against the Petitioners. The School Tribunal had held that their

termination from service was wrongful. Moreover, the vacancy created by their

unlawful termination was never filled, and the grant remained unutilised. She

therefore submitted that Respondent No. 2 is duty-bound to release their salaries

in accordance with the School Tribunal's directions. Ms Parasnis also brought to

our attention various decisions of this Court as follows:

i. Nandgaon Panchkroshi Madhyamik Shikshan Sanstha Nandgaon &
Anr. v. Kum. Kavita Prakash Nalawade and Anr.1

ii. The President/Secretary, Maharashtra, Bhasah Mahavidyalaya v. Shri
Phoolchand M. Ram & Ors.2

iii. Arpan Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha and Anr. v. The Education Officer
(Primary) and Anr.3

She thus urged the Court to allow the petition.

10. Mr Godbole, learned Senior Advocate, supported the arguments of the

Petitioners and affirmed that their positions have remained vacant during their

unlawful termination and no grants were released by the State Government for that

period. He submitted that the State Government is responsible for disbursing back

wages to the Petitioners, and the management is ready and willing to co-operate

with the Petitioners in that regard.

11. Mr V. G. Badgujar, learned AGP, submitted that the Petitioners were not on

duty from 4th April 2014 to 18th May 2023, during which their services stood

terminated. He further submitted that the Petitioners' wrongful termination was
1 Order dated 20th July 2009 in Writ Petition No. 3643 of 2009, Bombay High Court.
2 Order dated 16th September 2005 in Writ Petition No. 8574 of 2004, Bombay High Court.
3 Order dated 26th September 2016 in Writ Petition No. 6842 of 2015, Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench).

Page 5 of 12
Ajit Pathrikar
15_WP_14132_2023.DOC

due to the management's irresponsible acts, and the Government cannot be held

responsible. Notwithstanding his aforesaid contention, Respondent No. 2 heard

the Petitioners and the management, and only thereafter did the proposals for

release of back wages stand declined. Respondent No. 2 relied on the principle of

No work, No pay. Mr Badgujar thus attempted to justify the order impugned

herein.

12. These petitions raise a short but significant issue to the effect as to whether

in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the State Government was

correct in directing the arrears of wages which they retain to an aided post. The

State Government fully aids the schools. This aid includes salaries payable to the

teachers and other staff of the schools. Admittedly, the School Tribunal set aside

the termination of the Petitioners' services as unlawful and directed disbursement

of back wages. It is also admitted that during the period of unlawful termination,

the Petitioners' vacancies were not filled, and the State Government did not release

any grant. Thus, the grant-in-aid remained unutilised for this period in respect of

these Petitioners.

13. The School Tribunal’s order was assailed by the Petitioners by filing separate

Writ Petitions. The Writ Petitions were disposed of as the individual Petitioners

resolved their grievances with the management and tendered Minutes of Order

before this Court. The Court took the Minutes of Order on record and disposed of

the Writ Petition No. 4770 of 2022 on that basis. Paragraphs 4 to 13 of the

Minutes of Order read thus:

Page 6 of 12
Ajit Pathrikar
15_WP_14132_2023.DOC

“4. Mr. Dinshaw Cawasji, the Managing Trustee of the Petitioner School who is
present in the Court makes a statement that the School has not employed anyone in
place of the Respondent No. 1 from 4th April 2014, that the Post is vacant and the
Management has not availed any grant in aid in respect of the said post of the
Respondent No. 1. In view of this, the Respondent No. 1 who is present in the
Court agrees that she will not claim from the Petitioners any amounts towards the
50% back wages, other consequential benefits and any other monetary
compensation whatsoever due as per the order dated 25 th February, 2020 in Appeal
No.33 of 2019 passed by the School Tribunal and Respondent No. 1 agrees that the
Petitioners will not be liable for the same in any manner whatsoever.

5. Respondent No. 1 agrees that she shall within 7 days from this order
unconditionally and irrevocably withdraw Execution Application No. 30 of 2022
filed before the Court of Hon'ble Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vadgaon Maval,
Pune.

6. It is hereby directed that the Petitioner Management shall, forthwith re-instate the
Respondent No. 1 in the same Post as a Full time Teacher in the vacant post as an
employee on the post for which grant in aid is provided by Zilla Parishad, Pune, with
continuity of service, and fixation of salary in a pay scale as prescribed/ decided by
the Zilla Parishad. Since the post was vacant and since the Petitioners have not
claimed any grant in aid for the said post, Respondent No.1 shall be entitled to draw
arrears of wages in terms of and in the manner directed by the present order.

7. The Petitioner Management shall within 7 days from the re-instatement of
Respondent No. 1, submit a proposal/ application to the Education Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Pune, to enable the Respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders:

i. Regarding the disbursement of grant in aid of Respondent No.1 in service and
pass formal orders to grant continuity of service,

ii. deciding /determining and fixing the pay-scale of the Respondent No.1 in a
post as an aided employee of the Zilla Parishad for the purpose of payment of
salaries from the date of reinstatement;

iii. considering the proposal for payment of the 50% back wages and other
monetary benefits which can be disbursed by Zilla Parishad to the Respondent
No.1 (without any liability on the Petitioners) for the period of her absence from
service till her reinstatement in accordance with the said order dated 25 th February,
2020.

8. The Petitioners shall in the proposal state that the post occupied by Respondent
No.1 has been kept vacant and no grant in aid has been availed in respect of the said
post for the period of absence.

9. The Respondent No.1 has agreed to extend full co-operation to Petitioners for
submitting the requisite proposals/applications in respect of the re-instatement of
the Respondent No.1 and answer any queries which may be raised so as to enable
Petitioners to submit any documents which may be demanded by the Respondent
No.2 Education Officer.

Page 7 of 12
Ajit Pathrikar
15_WP_14132_2023.DOC

10. It is made clear that the Petitioners shall not be, in any manner whatsoever, liable
if the proposal for payment of back wages is rejected partly or fully by Zilla Parishad.

11. The Respondent No.1 shall within 15 days from the date of the re-instatement as
an aided employee by the School, join the post and commence her job as a teacher of
the said School with continuity of service and all consequential benefits.

12. The attachment of (1) Current Account No. No.2 (salary grant account of Zilla
Parishad)-Pune District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Lonavala, Old Mumbai
Pune Road., (2) Account No.32673 of Syndicate Bank, Branch Khandala (now
Canara Bank). (3) Account Nos. 1845401200, 1845402146 and 1845422800 of
Central Bank of India, Branch Lonavala, pursuant to order dated 19 th November,
2022, passed in Execution Application No. 30 of 2022 by this Hon'ble Court, is
hereby directed to be released/ vacated forthwith.

13. The Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to decide proposal of the Respondent
No.1 for release of salary and back wages of the Respondent No. 1 within 15 days
from the date of submitting of the proposal and if the said decision is in favour of
Respondent No.1, release the same as expeditiously as possible and within one
month from date of decision of the proposal and release the salary of the Respondent
No.1 for every month from the date of re-instatement and continue releasing
immediately from the date of this Order. The Petitioners shall in no manner be liable
for payment of backwages and salary of the Respondent No.1.”
(emphasis supplied)

14. The Writ Petition No. 11229 of 2019 was similarly disposed of in terms of

the Minutes of Order, which were also taken on record by this Court. Paragraphs 4

to 13 of the Minutes of Order read thus:

“4. Mr. Dinshaw Cawasji, the Managing Trustee of the Petitioner School who is
present in the Court makes a statement that the School has not employed anyone
in place of the Respondent No. 1 from 4 th April 2014, that the Post is vacant and
the Management has not availed any grant in aid in respect of the said post of the
Respondent No. 1. In view of this, the Respondent No. 1 who is present in the
Court agrees that he will not claim from the Petitioners any amounts towards the
full back wages, other consequential benefits and any other monetary
compensation whatsoever due as per the order dated 26 th August, 2019 in Appeal
No. 20 of 2015 passed by the School Tribunal and Respondent No. 1 agrees that
the Petitioners will not be liable for the same in any manner whatsoever.

5. Respondent No. 1 agrees that he shall within 7 days from this order
unconditionally and irrevocably withdraw Execution Application No. 29 of 2022
filed before the Court of Hon'ble Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vadgaon Maval,
Pune. Undertaking is accepted.

6. It is hereby directed that the Petitioner Management shall, forthwith re-instate

Page 8 of 12
Ajit Pathrikar
15_WP_14132_2023.DOC

the Respondent No. 1 in the same Post as a Full time Teacher in the vacant post as
an employee on the post for which grant in aid is provided by Zilla Parishad, Pune,
with continuity of service, and fixation of salary in a pay scale as prescribed/
decided by the Zilla Parishad. Since the post was vacant and since the Petitioners
have not claimed any grant in aid for the said post, Respondent No.1 shall be
entitled to draw arrears of wages in terms of and in the manner directed by the
present order.

i. Regarding the disbursement of grant in aid of Respondent No.1 in service and
pass formal orders to grant continuity of service,

ii. deciding /determining and fixing the pay-scale of the Respondent No.1 in a
post as an aided employee of the Zilla Parishad for the purpose of payment of
salaries from the date of reinstatement;

iii. considering the proposal for payment of the full back wages and other
monetary benefits which can be disbursed by Zilla Parishad to the Respondent
No.1 (without any liability on the Petitioners) for the period of his absence from
service till his reinstatement in accordance with the said order dated 26 th August,
2019.

10. It is made clear that the Petitioners shall not be, in any manner whatsoever,
liable if the proposal for payment of back wages is rejected partly or fully by Zilla
Parishad.

11. The Respondent No.1 shall within 15 days from the date of the re-instatement
as an aided employee by the School, join the post and commence his job as a
teacher of the said School with continuity of service and all consequential benefits.

12. The attachment of (1) Current Account No. No.2 (salary grant account of
Zilla Parishad)-Pune District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Lonavala, Old
Mumbai Pune Road., (2) Account No.32673 of Syndicate Bank, Branch Khandala
(now Canara Bank). (3) Account Nos. 1845401200, 1845402146 and
1845422800 of Central Bank of India, Branch Lonavala, pursuant to order dated
19th November, 2022, passed in Execution Application No. 29 of 2022 by this
Hon'ble Court, is hereby directed to be released/ vacated forthwith.

Page 9 of 12
Ajit Pathrikar
15_WP_14132_2023.DOC

13. The Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to decide proposal of the Respondent
No.1 for release of salary and back wages of the Respondent No. 1 within 15 days
from the date of submitting of the proposal and if the said decision is in favour of
Respondent No.1, release the same as expeditiously as possible and within one
month from date of decision of the proposal and release the salary of the
Respondent No.1 for every month from the date of re-instatement and continue
releasing immediately from the date of this Order. The Petitioners shall in no
manner be liable for payment of backwages and salary of the Respondent No.1.”

15. Despite the Writ Petitions filed by the management before this Court,

assailing the School Tribunal’s order, which was disposed of on the basis of consent

terms, including an assurance of assistance for submission of an application seeking

payment of back wages, the management failed to assist the Petitioners in

facilitating disbursement of back wages from the Respondent No. 2. Significantly,

the School Tribunal’s order was not challenged by Respondent No. 2 when it was

passed against the Education Officer. Hence, the obvious consequence is that

Respondent No. 2 was bound by the said order, and in the absence of Respondent

No.2 not assailing the same, it is deemed that the orders of the School Tribunal

were accepted by Respondent No.2. Thus, the orders of the School Tribunal were

binding on the State Government and hence, were required to be complied.

16. This Court, in Nandgaon (supra), in a case involving identical facts, held

that the Government department is responsible for paying the arrears of salaries

and allowances of employees who were reinstated, particularly when it did not

entail any additional expenditure for the Government. Since the State had already

approved the Petitioners' services and they were working prior to their unlawful

termination, and their posts were sanctioned and aided, Respondent No. 2 is

responsible for disbursing back wages to the Petitioners.

Page 10 of 12
Ajit Pathrikar
15_WP_14132_2023.DOC

17. In Arpan Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha (supra), a Division Bench of this Court,

relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Education Society, Tumsar and Others

vs. State of Maharashtra4, held that, as a general principle, whenever a terminated

employee of an aided school challenges the termination, and the termination is

held illegal by a competent judicial forum, and an order is passed for payment of

back wages, the Government is supposed to bear the burden. The Division Bench

also referred to the aforesaid Supreme Court decision, holding that the said rule

would apply, as back wages and other payments are in the nature of salary for the

intervening period that the employee would have earned had he remained in

service.

18. In the instant case, it is undisputed that Respondent No. 4 - School was

fully aided and the Petitioners’ appointments prior to their unlawful termination

were duly approved by the Education authorities. It is also undisputed that the

management did not appoint any other employees in the posts that fell vacant

during the termination of the Petitioners’ services. Had the Petitioners continued

to work in the school run by Respondent No. 3 - Trust, they would have received

their salaries from the State exchequer. Moreover, the School Tribunal has already

directed disbursement of 50% back wages to the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.

14132 of 2023, and full back wages to the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 14204 of

2023. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not challenged the said order, and it has

attained finality. In these circumstances, the Petitioners are entitled to receive their

respective back wages for the period they remained unlawfully terminated.

4 2016 (2) Bom. C.R. 244 (Supreme Court).

Page 11 of 12
Ajit Pathrikar
15_WP_14132_2023.DOC

19. In light of the above discussions, the impugned decision dated 4 th July 2023

rendered by Respondent No.3 cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed and

set aside. The back wages in respect of the Petitioners in both these petitions as

directed by the School Tribunal and the manner as confirmed by the learned Single

Judge of this Court would become payable to the Petitioners by allowing the

proposal as submitted by the Management - Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Let the

amounts payable for the respective periods in relation to each of the Petitioners in

the present proceedings be calculated and released in their favour within a period

of six weeks from today.

20. The Writ Petitions are thus allowed in the aforesaid terms. No Costs.

(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

Page 12 of 12
Ajit Pathrikar

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.