Bombay High Court
ATMARAM JAGANNATH MESTRYversusTHE PRESIDENT, RAJAPUR SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, RAJAPUR, RATNAGIRI AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHAILESH P BRAHME
Holding
The petitioner shall be treated as headmaster from 01‑06‑2015 and superannuated as headmaster, but he is not entitled to monetary benefits for the period 01‑06‑2015 to 31‑08‑2017.
Summary
The petitioners, permanent teachers in an aided school, challenged a School Tribunal order that denied them back wages for the period 01‑06‑2015 to 31‑08‑2017 and only gave a notional promotion to headmaster on the date of superannuation. Both parties later agreed that the petitioner would forego monetary claims if treated as headmaster at superannuation. The High Court examined the seniority, qualifications and the Tribunal's findings, finding no illegality in the promotion but noting the petitioner’s waiver of back‑wage claims. Relying on precedent that a D.H.E. qualification is equivalent to B.Ed., the Court ordered that the petitioner be deemed promoted to headmaster from 01‑06‑2015, superannuated as headmaster, with retirement benefits calculated on the headmaster pay scale, but without any back‑wage entitlement. The order of the Tribunal was modified accordingly and both writ petitions were disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to back wages for the period 01‑06‑2015 to 31‑08‑2017.
- Whether the petitioner can be treated as headmaster from 01‑06‑2015 for purposes of retirement benefits despite no salary being paid for that period.
Subjects
- promotion
- seniority
- back wages
- retirement benefits
- headmaster
- public exchequer
- school tribunal
- senior most teacher
Judgment
83 WP 615 OF 2024.odt
aqIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
83 WRIT PETITION NO. 615 OF 2024
THE PRESIDENT RAJAPUR SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL AND ANR
VERSUS
ATMARAM JAGANNATH MESTRY AND ORS
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Ameya Borwankar
Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Avinash Ram Belge
A.G.P. for Respondent/State : Mr. J. P. Patil
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7940 OF 2023
ATMARAM JAGANNATH MESTRY AND ORS
VERSUS
THE PRESIDENT RAJAPUR SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL AND ANR
…
Advocate for Petitioners: Mr. Mr. Avinash Ram Belge
Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Avinash Ram Belge
A.G.P. for Respondent/State : Mr. J. P. Patil
...
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 27.07.2026
PER COURT :
Heard both sides.
2. In both petitions, judgment and order dated 11.09.2017, passed by
the School Tribunal Kolhapur, in Appeal No. 29/2015, is under challenge.
3. The petitioner-employee is aggrieved by clause No. 3 and 4 of the
impugned judgment and order, thereby denying benefits from 01.06.2015 to
31.08.2017.
4. The petitioner is the permanent employee of respondent no. 1-
1/4
83 WP 615 OF 2024.odt
Management, working in the aided school. He was holding qualification of
M.A. D.H.E. and appointed on 13.06.1985. Respondent no. 3 was appointed
on 19.06.1991. The petitioner was the senior most teacher in category ‘C’.
He was being superseded by respondent no. 3 for filling up post of
headmaster. Being aggrieved, petitioner had preferred Appeal No. 29/2015.
He was claiming post of headmaster with effect from 01.06.2015.
5. Respondent no. 3 did not contest the claim before the Tribunal.
Respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 contested the claim. Respondent no. 3 has not
caused appearance in this matter but no prejudice would be caused if the
order is passed in the matter without disturbing his position or the benefits.
6. By the impugned judgment and order, Tribunal allowed appeal partly
holding that petitioner was senior most teacher from 2016. He was directed
to be given notional promotion as a headmaster on 31.08.2017, which was
his date of superannuation. He was denied back wages during 01.06.2015
to 31.08.2017. In this backdrop, this Court is dealing with the petitions
preferred before this Court.
7. Undisputedly, the petitioner attained age of superannuation on
31.08.2017. Thereafter, impugned judgment was rendered on 11.09.2017.
The counsel appearing for the respondent-Management, on instructions of
his client fairly submits that if the petitioner is giving up the monetary
benefits from 01.06.2015 to 31.08.2017, the management does not have
serious objection for treating him as a headmaster at the time of
superannuation and accordingly ready to forward the pension papers to the
Education Officer.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions of his client, who is
present today before this Court gives up the monetary claim from
01.06.2015 to 31.08.2017, if the respondent-management is ready to treat
him as a headmaster on the date of superannuation.
2/4
83 WP 615 OF 2024.odt
9. The learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent/State would submit that
no additional financial burden can be imposed on a public exchequer. If the
concessions given by counsels appearing for the parties are affecting the
financial liability of the Education Officer, then he would oppose both the
petitions.
10. The petitioner is not claiming back wages or monetary benefits from
01.06.2015 to 31.08.2017. The management has no serious objection for
treating the petitioner as a headmaster on the date of superannuation i.e.
31.08.2017. It is informed by learned counsel for the respondent-
Management that though respondent no. 3 was promoted on the post of
headmaster, he was not being approved and there was no disbursement of
salary to him as headmaster.
11. Considering the dates of appointment of petitioner and respondent
no. 3, there is no difficulty in upholding the findings recorded by the
Tribunal that the petitioner is the senior most teacher in category ‘C’.
Relying upon the judgment of the High Court in the matter of Anil Patil Vs.
State of Maharashtra; 2016(5) All M.R. 491, the qualification of DHE, of the
petitioner is treated to be equivalent with B.Ed. I do not find any fault with
the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioner was holding
qualification of headmaster. I do not find that there is any patent illegality
or perversity in the impugned order in holding that the petitioner should
have been promoted on the post of headmaster on 01.06.2015.
12. The petitioner has given up his claim for back wages or the monetary
benefits from 01.06.2015 to 31.08.2017. There is no legal impediment in
treating the petitioner as a headmaster with effect from 01.06.2015 till
superannuation. His status on the date of his superannuation is significant
for fixing the retiral benefits. It is made clear that petitioner shall be
entitled to be treated as a head master on his last date of service i.e.
31.08.2017. If the petitioner is notionally treated to be headmaster from
3/4
83 WP 615 OF 2024.odt
01.06.2015 to 31.08.2017, no prejudice would be caused to respondent-
Department or any other person. It is already made clear that no salary or
other benefits are disbursed for the post of headmaster though respondent
no. 3 is promoted as a headmaster. I do not find any prejudice would be
caused to the public exchequer.
13. In that view of the matter, I find that both the petitions are disposed
of and clause no. 3 and 4 of the impugned judgment shall be replaced as
under:
(i) The petitioner shall be treated to be promoted to
the post of headmaster from 01.06.2015 and he shall be
declared to be superannuated as headmaster.
(ii) His retiral benefits shall be fixed on last pay drawn
for the post of headmaster.
(iii) The respondent-management shall forward the
papers to the respondent-Department in accordance with
the minutes of the today’s order.
(iv) The petitioner shall not be entitled to monetary
benefits from 01.06.2015 to 31.08.2017.
( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)
mkd/-
4/4
Checking your session…