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 disposed of the petition, permitting the petitioner to seek salary arrears but declining to grant mandamus as absorption had already occurred.
Summary
The petitioner, Nilesh, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the State of Maharashtra and other respondents to absorb him in an aided school and to pay his salary pending absorption, invoking Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Employee of Private School (C of S) Regulation Act, 1977. The counsel for both sides agreed that the petitioner had already been absorbed, leaving only the claim for salary arrears from November 2022 to the date of regularisation. The Court examined whether the respondents were obligated to pay those arrears under the said rule and relevant precedents. It held that the petition for mandamus was no longer necessary but allowed the petitioner to make a representation for the salary arrears. The Court directed the management to submit a proposal within two weeks and ordered the Designated Officer to decide the matter within eight weeks, granting an opportunity of hearing to both parties. The petition and the interim application were disposed of without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary arrears for the period from November 2022 until his regularisation under Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Employee of Private School (C of S) Regulation Act, 1977.
- Whether a writ of mandamus directing absorption in an aided school is appropriate when the petitioner has already been absorbed.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Employee of Private School (C of S) Regulation Act, 1977 — s. Rule 27
Subjects
- Article 226
- Mandamus
- Salary arrears
- Absorption
- Aided school
- Maharashtra Employee of Private School Regulation Act
- Public service law
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
SUBODH
KARVE
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.