SWAMI VIVEKANAND SHIKSHAN SANSTHA and ORS.versusNALAWADE RAMLING VINAYAK and ORS.

                                                                             17-WP-2020-2004 @.doc




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
           Digitally
           signed by
                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
           HUSENBASHA
HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN
RAHAMAN    NADAF
NADAF      Date:
           2026.09.07                      WRIT PETITION NO. 2020 OF 2004
           20:01:23
           +0530


                        Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha And Ors.          ....Petitioners
                             V/s
                        Nalawade Ramling Vinayak And Ors.                   ....Respondents

                                                         ***
                        Mr. Vinayak R. Kumbhar for Petitioners.
                        Mr Dilip Bodake a/w. Ms. Shraddha Pawar for Respondent No 1.
                        Mr. Asif I. Patal, Addl. G.P. a/w. Ms. Savina R. Crasto, AGP for
                        Respondent Nos.3 & 4/State.
                                                         ***

                                                               CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                               DATE    : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026
                        P.C. :

                        1.       Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

                        2.       This petition is filed by the Management challenging the order
                        dated 02.09.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,
                        Pune Region, Pune in Appeal No.69 of 2002. By the said appeal,
                        Respondent No.1 had challenged alleged ‘otherwise termination’
                        under letter/communication dated 05.04.2002 issued by Petitioner-
                        Management. By the impugned order, the alleged ‘otherwise
                        termination’ is set aside thereby directing the Petitioner-Management
                        to pay back-wages to Respondent No.1 from 05.04.2002 till
                        reinstated on 01.05.2003.

                        3.       Certain undisputed facts are required to be noted. Respondent
                        No.1 was working with the Petitioner-Institute in various schools for


                        Husen                                  1
                                                         17-WP-2020-2004 @.doc




a long time. It is not disputed that Respondent No.1 is a handicapped
person. In July 2000, Respondent No.1 was transferred from
Petitioner No.2-School (at Loni Kalbhor) to Chhatrapati Shivaji High
School, Bhor. This transfer order was challenged by Respondent No.1
by filing Writ Petition No.4270 of 2000 in which Division Bench of
this Court, by an order dated 23.08.2000, issued notice and granted
ad-interim stay to the order of transfer. It is not disputed that this
petition got dismissed for default on 20.07.2001. Apparently, after
receiving the copy of this order, the Petitioner-Management issued a
letter dated 05.04.2002 to Respondent No.1 asking him to join the
school at transferred place (Bhor). Treating            this communication
dated 05.04.2002 as ‘otherwise termination’, Respondent No.1 filed
Appeal No.69 of 2002 in the School Tribunal under Section 9 of
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
Regulation Act, 1977. During pendency of this appeal, on 31.03.2003
the aforesaid writ petition was restored. Thereafter within a month,
on 30.04.2003, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ
petition by observing that there is no reason to interfere with the
order of transfer; however, observing as under :

        “     By this Petition, the Petitioner has challenged his transfer
        three years ago. We see no reason to interfere with the order then
        made. However, looking to the facts that three years have passed
        since then, we direct that the Petitioner should make a fresh
        representation to the Managing Committee requesting another
        available posting. If such representation is made the Respondent
        should decide it objectively as early as possible.”


4.      It is not disputed that immediately thereafter on the next day

Husen                                     2
                                                    17-WP-2020-2004 @.doc




i.e. 01.05.2003, Respondent No. 1 joined the school at transferred
place. Within the four corners of above facts, the learned Presiding
Officer has considered the rival submissions and held that the
communication      dated    05.04.2002    amounted        to    ‘otherwise
termination’.

5.      Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the record, the contention of the Petitioner-Management that ‘there
was no otherwise termination’ needs to be accepted and the petition
is required to be partly allowed for following reasons.

6.      On 20.07.2001 the petition challenging the transfer was
dismissed for default and it was restored only on 31.03.2003. The
order restoring the petition does not restore any interim relief
specifically. The petition was ultimately dismissed on 30.04.2003,
observing about representation and its consideration.

7.      Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 has submitted that when
any interlocutory order is passed before dismissal of the petition, it
stands revived when the dismissal is set aside. He relied upon Vareed
Jacob Vs. Sosamma, Geevarghese and others 2004 AIR (SC) 3992.
The Hon’ble supreme Court has held that if the proceedings are
restored, then unless the Court expressly or by implication excludes
the operation of interlocutory orders, the interlocutory orders would
stand revived. In the present case, perusal of the restoration order
dated 31.03.2003 indicates that after hearing Advocate for
Respondent No. 1, the restoration order was passed. But since the
wordings of the order do not specifically indicate revival of the


Husen                                 3
                                                  17-WP-2020-2004 @.doc




interim relief, despite advocate for Respondent No. 1 appearing, it is
seen that ‘by implication’ no such request was either recorded to be
made or granted. Therefore, till 31.03.2003, the Petitioner-
Management was not under any interim order after the petition was
dismissed. Be that as it may. Let us assume in favour of the
Respondent No. 1 in best possible way.

8.      Considering that Respondent No. 1 has joined the services
thereafter on the transferred place and also continued to work, it
cannot be said that communication dated 05.04.2002 amounts to
otherwise termination. To that extent, the finding of the Tribunal is
perverse.

9.      Admittedly, Respondent No. 1 had served with the Petitioner
for a long time. Assuming that on the restoration of the petition, his
interim relief also got restored on 31.03.2003, the only period that
can be considered in favour of Respondent No. 1 is from 31.03.2003
till 30.04.2003 during which the petition was pending and according
to Respondent No. 1, he was not permitted to work. Therefore, the
order of back-wages will have to be suitably modified only to that
extent.

10.     In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for reasons
indicated above, the petition is partly allowed and Rule is made
partly absolute and writ petition is disposed of by passing following
order :

        (A)   The impugned order dated 02.09.2003 is set aside.
        Appeal No. 69 of 2002 is dismissed. However, the Petitioner-

Husen                                4
                                                      17-WP-2020-2004 @.doc




        Management is directed to pay back-wages from 31.03.2003
        till 30.04.2003, directly to Respondent No. 1, within a period
        of 4 weeks i.e. till 05.10.2026.

        (B)   Considering that there was interim stay to the order of
        back-wages during pendency of the petition, and also
        considering the fact that this Court has concluded that there
        was no otherwise termination, Respondent No. 1 shall not be
        entitled to any interest. If the amount is not paid within 4
        weeks as directed above, the amount shall carry interest @9%
        p.a. from 06.10.2026 till realization.

11.     All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
QR verifiable copy of this order.

                                                 (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Husen                                      5