Bombay High Court

DATTATRAY ANANDA JADHAVversusEDUCATION OFFICER (SECONDARY) AND ORS.

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The Court quashed the communication refusing salary and held that the petitioner is entitled to the arrears of salary.

Summary

Dattatray Ananda Jadhav filed a writ petition seeking release of salary arrears after an initial approval dated 31.03.2025 was later withdrawn by the Deputy Director of Education on 21.07.2025, invoking Rule 33 sub‑rule (5) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. The petitioner argued that a bail condition prevented him from reporting for duty, rendering the refusal of salary untenable. The Court examined whether the bail restriction fell within the exception provided by Rule 33(5) and whether the petitioner was entitled to arrears despite the later rejection. It held that the communication refusing salary was unsustainable and quashed the impugned order. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to release the arrears within eight weeks and to reinstate the petitioner’s Shalarth ID, allowing the petition and disposing of the case.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 33 sub‑rule (5) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 applies to the petitioner’s case.
Whether the bail condition that prevented the petitioner from reporting for duty bars his claim for salary arrears.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the arrears of salary despite the later rejection by the Deputy Director of Education.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 — s. Rule 33(5)

Subjects

salary arrears
bail condition
Rule 33
private school employees
service rules
quashing order
resumption of service

Judgment

                                                                   146-WP-440-2026.doc



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       WRIT PETITION NO. 440 OF 2026

Dattatray Ananda Jadhav                                 ...Petitioner
           Versus
Education Oicer (secondary) And Others                  ...Respondents

                                 ——————
Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar a/w Mr. Rahul Patil - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. V. M. Mali – Asst. Government Pleader for the State
Mr. Vinayak Belgaonkar – Advocate for Respondent No. 4
                                 ——————
                                   Coram :     Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                               Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                   Date      : October 05, 2026.
P. C. :


1.         By this petition, the petitioner seeks release of the arrears of

salary as per the communication addressed by Respondent No. 2 to

Respondent No. 3 dated 31.03.2025.


2.         The order dated 06.08.2026 passed by this Court records that the

Education Oicer had granted due approval on 01.07.2024, and the Dy.

Director of Education had approved and recommended the payment of

salary to the Petitioner by the order dated 31.03.2025. The same Dy.

Director of Education, by virtue of the impugned order dated

21.07.2025, has now rejected the claim of the Petitioner on the ground



SG Punde                            1 of 3
                                                              146-WP-440-2026.doc



that the Petitioner’s case falls within the ambit of Rule 33, sub-rule (5)

of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)

Rules, 1981.


3.         The Hon’ble Court vide the aforesaid order noted that, Rule 33,

sub-rule (5) would enure to the beneit of the Petitioner as it provides

that if there is a reason or condition due to which the Petitioner is

unable to attend the school, the same stands as an exception carved out

in favour of the Petitioner to claim salary.


4.         Mr. Narvankar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that

the condition of bail prevented the Petitioner from entering into

village/area/vicinity wherein the Complainant was residing and from

entering into the vicinity of the school/college/tuition where the Victim

was taking education till inal disposal of the case. The impugned

communication refusing release of the salary is on the ground that

despite the bail being granted, the Petitioner did not report for duty.

The said condition of the bail restrained the Petitioner from reporting

for duty and as such, the ground on which the arrears of salary have

been declined is unsustainable.


5.         In light of the above, the impugned communication dated

29.07.2025 refusing release of the salary to the Petitioner is quashed

and set aside.


SG Punde                            2 of 3
                                                                  146-WP-440-2026.doc



6.         The Respondents are directed to release the arrears of the salary

of the Petitioner as on date, within a period of eight (8) weeks from

today.


7.         As the Petitioner has been acquitted of all the charges, the

Respondents are directed to take steps to the resumption of the

Petitioner’s Shalarth ID as communicated by Respondent No. 3 vide

letter dated 01.08.2026.


8.         The Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.




 [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.]                          [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]




SG Punde                             3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…