Bombay High Court

ALKA TUKARAM PANDAVversusSHESHRAO BADE, THE EDUCATION OFFICER, PRIMARY ZILLA PARISHAD, ALIBAG and ORS.

Decided: 17 February 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: M S KARNIK S M MODAK

Holding

Since the consent terms of the earlier compromise are still in force, the Court cannot grant the relief sought and the petitioners must initiate separate proceedings to challenge the settlement.

Summary

The petitioners, who are peons employed at a private unaided school, filed several writ petitions under Article 226 seeking payment of salary and pay‑scale as prescribed under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The Court noted that earlier proceedings (Writ Petition No. 1273 of 2012) resulted in a settlement whereby the petitioners received a lump‑sum back‑service payment and were to be engaged on a contract basis with a revised monthly service payment. The settlement, recorded in the minutes of a meeting dated 10 May 2012, was affirmed in subsequent contempt proceedings (Contempt Petition No. 70 of 2013 and Contempt Petition No. 290 of 2015) and remains in force. Because the consent terms of the compromise are still operative, the Court held it could not grant the relief sought for payment of the MEPS Act pay‑scale. The Court directed the petitioners to file a fresh representation or appropriate proceedings to challenge the consent terms if they allege coercion or undue influence. Consequently, all the writ petitions were disposed of without any costs.

Issues considered

The petitioners are employees covered by the definition in Section 2(7) of the MEPS Act and thus entitled to its pay‑scale.
Whether the earlier compromise and consent terms bar the Court from granting the relief sought in the present writ petitions.
Whether the compromise was obtained by coercion or undue influence, warranting its setting aside.

Legislation cited

Contempt of Courts Act
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 406, 420
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 — s. 2(7), 3(1)

Subjects

Article 226
writ of mandamus
MEPS Act
private school employees
pay scale
compromise settlement
consent terms
contempt of court
coercion
undue influence

Judgment

Ingale 21-wp-11568-2018.odt

Digitally signed
‘IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
by URMILA
URMILA PRAMOD
INGALE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PRAMOD Date:
INGALE 2026.02.21
15:24:08
+0530

WRIT PETITION NO. 11568 OF 2018

Mrs. Manjula Kashinath Jamdade … Petitioner
Versus
Shri. Sheshrao Bade,
The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad and ors. .… Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3364 OF 2018

Arun Tanaji Thanage … Petitioner
Versus
Shri. Sheshrao Bade,
The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad and ors. .… Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9670 OF 2019

Alka Tukaram Pandav … Petitioner
Versus
Shri. Sheshrao Bade,
The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad and ors. .… Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12666 OF 2018

Mrs. Mangala Bajirao Potre … Petitioner
Versus
Shri. Sheshrao Bade,
The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad and ors. .… Respondents

1
Ingale 21-wp-11568-2018.odt

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2992 OF 2018

Amol Kisan Sangale … Petitioner
Versus
Shri. Sheshrao Bade,
The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad and ors. .… Respondents

****
Mr. Chandrakant Bidkar, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Anik Lohia a/w Mr. Kshitij Madekar, Ms. Aditi Kambli i/b A. S.
Dayal & Associates, for the Respondent No.4.
Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, Addl. GP a/w Smt. G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGP
for Respondent-State in WP/2992/2018.
Mr. N.C. Walimbe, Addl. GP a/w Mr. A.K. Naik, AGP, for
Respondent No.2-State in WP/11568/2018, WP/3364/2018,
WP/9670/2019, WP/12666/2018.
[

****

CORAM : M.S.KARNIK &
S.M.MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 17th FEBRUARY 2026

ORAL ORDER (PER M.S.KARNIK, J.) :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By these petitions

filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners

have prayed for the following substantive relief.

“(b) The Honourable Court be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus
or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ
and/or order and direction in the nature of such a writ and be
pleased to pay scale to the petitioner from the date of his
appointment till today and be paid to him as per provisions of the
Maharashtra Employees Of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Regulation Act 1977 and Rules of 1981.”

2
Ingale 21-wp-11568-2018.odt

2. As the same issues are involved in these writ petitions, all

these writ petitions are disposed of by passing a common order.

For ease of reference, facts in the Writ Petition No. 11568 of 2018

are mentioned in this common order.

3. Prior to filing of these petitions, there were proceedings

filed in this Court seeking similar reliefs which we shall advert to

shortly.

4. The petitioners are working as peons with the respondent

no. 4-School. By an order dated 12/03/2012, Writ Petition No.

1273 of 2012 filed by the petitioners along with other connected

petitions were disposed of by this Court. The said order reads

thus:

“1. The grievance of the petitioners in these matters is that
although they are working as peons i.e. the non-teaching staff in
the school of Respondent Nos.1 and 2, they have not been paid
their dues/salary in accordance with the provisions of the MEPS
Act. It is not in dispute that the respondent school is a recognised
unaided school. Nevertheless, by virtue of section 3(1) of the MEPS
Act, the provisions of the said Act are applicable to the respondent
school. To get over this position, the respondent school through
Counsel contends that the petitioners in each of these petitions
were appointed on contract basis to do job work and not as
employees of the school as such. It is however not in dispute that
the petitioners were employed to discharge the work of peon. The
fact whether the petitioners would be covered by the definition of
"employee" u/s 2(7) of the MEPS Act or otherwise is a matter which
will have to be addressed in first place and if so, the consequential
question to be considered would be whether the petitioners have
been paid their dues in accordance with the provisions of MEPS Act.
Both these issues can be enquired into by the Education Officer of

3
Ingale 21-wp-11568-2018.odt

the area, Respondent No.3 herein.
2. In the circumstances, we dispose off these petitions on the
following terms:
i) the Education Officer i.e. the Respondent No.3 shall enquire into
the two questions referred to above on the basis of representation
made by the petitioners after giving opportunity to all concerned.
ii) All questions in that behalf are left open to be decided by
respondent No.3.

iii) The enquiry shall be conducted by the Education Officer as
expeditiously as possible and in any case to be completed within six
weeks from today.

iv) The petitioners as well as the representative of the respondent
school shall participate in the said proceedings and extend full
cooperation for early disposal thereafter.

v) They shall appear in the Office of the Respondent No.3
Education Officer on 19.3.2012 at 11 am on which date, the
Education Officer may call upon the parties to submit all the
relevant material in support of their respective stand and assign
suitable date when the parties can be heard so as to finally
conclude the enquiry within the specified time.”

5. It is pertinent to note that pursuant to the passing of the

order dated 12/03/2012 and as can be seen from the record, there

was a meeting held between the petitioners and other peons with

the Management on 10/05/2012. A settlement came to be

recorded which reflects in the order dated 22/04/2013 passed by

this Court in Contempt Petition No. 70 of 2013. The Contempt

Petition No. 70 of 2013 along with connected contempt petitions

were filed by the petitioners alleging breach of the order dated

12/03/2012. The relevant portion of the order dated 22/04/2013

4
Ingale 21-wp-11568-2018.odt

passed by this Court in Contempt Petition No. 70 of 2013 reads

thus:

“3. Mr. Sathe, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent Nos.3 and 4 relied upon separate letters all dated 25 th
May 2012, addressed by the advocate of the petitioners who had
filed the Writ Petitions in which the said order, of which contempt
is alleged, was passed. The same advocate appears before us for
the petitioners in these Contempt Petitions. The petitioners, under
cover of the said letter dated 25th May, 2012, forwarded copies of
the minutes of the meeting held on 10 th May, 2012 between the
petitioners and the Management and receipts of Rs.3,00,000/-
issued by each of the petitioners. Mr. Sathe also relied upon the
order/communication of the Education Officer dated 26 th May,
2012, addressed to this Court recording that a compromise was
arrived at between the petitioners and the Management. The fact
that a compromise was arrived at is, therefore, not disputed. The
petitioners, however, contended that the said compromise was
brought about by coercion and undue influence on the part of the
Management as well as by the Education Officer.

4. The said letter dated 25th May, 2012, addressed by the
petitioners advocate as well as the enclosures thereto and the fact
of receipt of the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is, however, not
mentioned in the contempt petitions. These facts ought to have
been mentioned.
5. We do not intend expressing any view on the correctness of the
petitioners said contention regarding the validity of the
compromise which is taken only during the course of arguments. It
is not raised in the petition.
6. Even assuming that the order/communication of the Education
Officer is wrong for any reason, including on account of the alleged
coercion or undue influence, the petitioners ought to adopt
proceedings for having the same set aside. There is no warrant for
taking any action for contempt, at least at this stage. In the event
of there being a finding to the effect that the order was passed due
to coercion or undue influence, the petitioners are at liberty to file
a fresh petition for contempt.”

6. Thus, we find that the aforesaid order passed in Contempt

Petitions clearly records about the compromise that was entered

5
Ingale 21-wp-11568-2018.odt

into between the petitioners and the Management- School. This

Court, in paragraph 3 of the said order, has recorded the fact that a

compromise was arrived at is not disputed. The petitioner however

contended that the said compromise was brought about by

coercion and undue influence on the part of the Management as

well as by the Education Officer. This Court therefore, in

paragraph 6, observed that even assuming that the

order/communication of the Education Officer is wrong for any

reason, including on account of the alleged coercion or undue

influence, the petitioners ought to adopt proceedings for having

the same set aside. In such a view of the matter, it was observed

that there was no warrant for taking any action for contempt.

7. The petitioners again filed Contempt Petition No. 290 of

2015 along with other connected Contempt Petitions which came

to be disposed of on 13/07/2017 by this Court. This Court

observed in paragraphs 5 & 6 as under :

“ 5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties and having gone through the order dated
22nd April, 2013 passed in Contempt Petitions more particularly
Para 5 and 6 of the said order, we are of the view that the present
Contempt Petitions are wholly misconceived. It is not in dispute
that there is no finding given by Competent Authority holding that
the order of the Education Officer recording compromise entered
into by the Petitioners is on the basis of “alleged coercion or undue
influence”.

6
Ingale 21-wp-11568-2018.odt

6. In the circumstances in view of the observations contained in
paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the aforesaid order dated 22 nd April,
2013 in our considered view, it is not open for the Petitioners to
file a fresh Contempt Petition without there being any findings of
any Competent Authority as mentioned in paragraph 6 of the
order.”

8. It is significant to note that the petitioners in view of the

order passed by this Court made a representation to the Education

Officer on 29/07/2017. A request was again made for payment of

pay scale in terms of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools

(Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (‘MEPS Act’, for

short). Paragraphs 8 & 10 of the representation reads thus :

“ 8. I submit that Education Officer, Mr. R.A.Pawar did not obey the
directions given by their Lordships Mr.A.M.Khanwilkar (J) and Mr
N.M.Jamdar (J) and disobeyed the orders of Their Lordships and
committed offence under Contempt of Court Act. My clients submit
that Education Officer Zilla Parishad (Primary) purposefully and
knowingly caused loss to my clients. I submit that my clients were
compelled to compromise the matter with the Res. Nos 3 and 4 for
his wrongful gain and committed offences under Section 420, 406
read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
10. On behalf of my clients I submit that my clients were compelled
to accept the compromise and contents of the minutes of the
meeting dated 25th May 2012 which were held by Management. My
clients submit that compromise was brought about by coercion and
undue influence on the part of the Management as well as the
Education Officer.”

9. The request made in the representation to the Education

Officer was to direct the Management and School Authorities to

comply with the orders passed by this Court.

7
Ingale 21-wp-11568-2018.odt

10. As we have already noted above, this Court had in so many

words observed that there is no breach of the order dated

12/03/2012 passed by this Court. It is pertinent to mention that

in this petition, the order dated 31/10/2017 which is at page 113

of the petition passed by the Education Officer (Primary) on the

representation made by the petitioners is not under challenge.

Nonetheless, learned counsel for the petitioners made an attempt

to submit that the Education Officer was in error in holding that

the petitioners are not covered by the provisions of MEPS Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the petitioners

should be paid pay scale in terms of what is provided under the

MEPS Act.

11. It is significant to note the terms of the compromise which

was admittedly entered into by the petitioners and the

Management. The scanned copy of terms of the compromise reads

thus :

8
Ingale 21-wp-11568-2018.odt

9
Ingale 21-wp-11568-2018.odt

10
Ingale 21-wp-11568-2018.odt

12. For facility of reference, the Minutes of the Meeting dated

10/05/2012 is transcribed reading thus :

“Minutes of the Meeting dated 10th May 2012 held in J.H. Ambani School
(English Medium), LODHIVALI
Representatives of J.H. Ambani School Representation of Writ Petitions
(English Medium) Lodhivali
Shri V.K.Patil 1. Shri Chandrakant Bidkar
Chairman-Local Advisory Committee Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mrs. Rama Laxman Vemuri 2. Shri Allauddin Shaikh
Principal- J.H. Ambani School (English By invitation
Medium)
Shri N.K. Mantri 3. Shri B.C. Kamble
Member-Local Advisory Committee By Invitation
Shri A.V.Sawant 4. Shri Sanjay Subhash Sangle
By invitation Writ Petition No. 1265 of 2012
Shri A.V. Betkekar 5. Shri Amol Kisan Sangle
By Invitation Writ Petition No. 1266 of 2012
6. Shri Arun Tanaji Thanage
Writ Petition No. 1267 of 2012
7. Mrs. Mangala Bajirao Potre
Writ Petition No. 1268 of 2012
8. Ms. Alka Tukaram Pandav
Writ Petition No. 1269 of 2012
9. Ms. Vandana Bhivraj Thakur
Writ Petition No. 1270 of 2012
10. Ms. Shaila Shantaram Chavan
Writ Petition No. 1271 of 2012
11. Ms. Rajashree Rajendra Palkar
Writ Petition No. 1272 of 2012
12. Ms. Manjula Kashinath Jamdade
Writ Petition No. 1273 of 2012

Sub: Discussion and amicable settlement in respect of Writ Petition Nos.1265
of 2012 to Writ Petition Nos. 1273 of 2012 filed before the Hon’ble High
Court, Mumbai and as per the directions given by the Hon’ble High Court,
Mumbai to Education Officer (Primary), Raigad Zilla Parishad, Alibaug to
enquire in the matter of Petitioner.

After discussion & deliberation on the Writ Petition Nos. 1265 of 2012 to 1273

11
Ingale 21-wp-11568-2018.odt

of 2012, following was consensually concluded :-

1. Back Service Payment as one-time payment Lumpsum amount :

Name of the Writ Petitioner Amount (Rs.)
1. Shri Sanjay Subhash Sangle 3,00,000.00
Writ Petition No. 1265 of 2012
2. Shri Amol Kisan Sangle 3,00,000.00
Writ Petition No. 1266 of 2012
3. Shri Arun Tanaji Thanage 3,00,000.00
Writ Petition No. 1267 of 2012
4. Ms.Mangala Bajirao Potre 3,00,000.00
Writ Petition No. 1268 of 2012
5. Ms. Alka Tukaram Panday 3,00,000.00
Writ Petition No. 1269 of 2012
6. Ms. Vandana Bhivraj Thakur 3,00,000.00
Writ Petition No. 1270 of 2012
7. Ms. Shaila Shantaram Chavan 3,00,000.00
Writ Petition No. 1271 of 2012
8. Ms. Rajashree Ranjendra Palkar 3,00,000.00
Writ Petition No. 1272 of 2012
9. Ms. Manjula Kashinath Jamdade 3,00,000.00
Writ Petition No. 1273 of 2012
Above amount covers back service payment as Lumpsum amount as one-
time payment upto 31st May, 2012 and the same will be paid within 10 days
from the date of Minutes of Meeting. The above service payment is subject to
statutory deductions, if any.

2. Service payment
Service payment will be revised with effect from 1st June, 2012 as under:

Name of the Writ Petitioners Amount of service payment per month as
Cost to School basis (CTS)
1. Shri Sanjay Subhash Sangle 10500.00
Writ Petition No. 1265 of 2012
2. Shri Amol Kisan Sangle 10500.00
Writ Petition No. 1266 of 2012
3. Shri Arun Tanaji Thanage 10500.00
Writ Petition No. 1267 of 2012

12
Ingale 21-wp-11568-2018.odt

4. Ms.Mangala Bajirao Potre 10500.00
Writ Petition No. 1268 of 2012
5. Ms. Alka Tukaram Panday 10500.00
Writ Petition No. 1269 of 2012
6. Ms. Vandana Bhivraj Thakur 10500.00
Writ Petition No. 1270 of 2012
7. Ms. Shaila Shantaram Chavan 10500.00
Writ Petition No. 1271 of 2012
8. Ms. Rajashree Ranjendra Palkar
Writ Petition No. 1272 of 2012 10500.00
9. Ms. Manjula Kashinath Jamdade 10500.00
Writ Petition No. 1273 of 2012
Concerned persons are surplus and not required by the J.H.Ambani School,
however, with a view to amicable settlement, these persons will be engaged
through service provider with effect from 1st June 2012.

The School will avail the services of the Petitioners through a separate
contract based on the terms and conditions to be decided from time to time
with the Service provider.

3. Availment of Service :
With effect from 1 st June, 2012, Service provider shall issue his
appointment. Letters to the above Petitioners. Service payment to the above
Petitioners by the service provider shall be as per the service payment drawn
as on 31st May, 2012.

All the demands and disputes of the Petitioners prior to 1 st June, 2012 are
fully and finally settled. The concerned persons will have no claims of
whatsoever nature, for reinstatement or re-employment with the J.H.Ambani
School, Lodhivali.

Consequent to the signing of these Minutes of the Meeting, dispute between
the Respondents & Petitioners stands settled. Accordingly, the above
Petitioners to withdraw the complaint pending before the Education Officer
(Primary), Raigad Zilla Parishad, Alibaug, on the next date of hearing i.e. 16 th
May, 2012.

J.H.Ambani School (English Medium), Lodhivali Representative :

Shri V.K. Patil
Chairman – Local Advisory Committee sd/-

Mrs. Rama Laxmi Vemuri
Principal- J.H. Ambani School (English Medium) sd/-

13
Ingale 21-wp-11568-2018.odt

Shri N.K. Mantri
Member- Local Advisory Committee sd/-

Shri A.V. Sawant
By invitation sd/-

Shri A.V. Betkekar
By invitation sd/-

PETITIONERS/Representatives :

Shri Chandrakant Bidkar
Advocate for the Petitioners sd/-

Shri Allauddin Shaikh
By Invitation sd/-

Shri B.C.Kamble
By Invitation sd/-

Shri Sanjay Subhash Sangle
Writ Petition No. 1265 of 2012 sd/-

Shri Amol Kisan Sangle
Writ Petition No. 1266 of 2012 sd/-

Shri Arun Tanaji Thanage
Writ Petition No. 1267 of 2012 sd/-

Ms.Mangala Bajirao Potre
Writ Petition No. 1268 of 2012 sd/-

Ms.Alka Tukaram Pandav
Writ Petition No. 1269 of 2012 sd/-

Ms.Vandana Bhivraj Thakur
Writ Petition No. 1270 of 2012 sd/-

Ms.Shaila Shantaram Chavan
Writ Petition No. 1271 of 2012 sd/-

Ms.Rajashree Rajendra Palkar
Writ Petition No. 1272 of 2012 sd/-

Ms.Manjula Kashinath Jamdade
Writ Petition No. 1273 of 2012 sd/-”

14
Ingale 21-wp-11568-2018.odt

13. It is also pertinent to note that this Court by order dated

21/10/2013 had disposed of similar petitions filed by the peons

based on a similar compromise and in view of the consent terms.

The consent terms filed in writ petition filed by Mr. Waman Hiru

Mali (Writ Petition No. 3956 of 2013) read thus :

“The Petitioner and Respondent No.1 and 2 agree on the following
terms:
1) The Respondent No. 1 and 2 have paid Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees
Three Lacs Only) as one time settlement to the above said
petitioner towards his back wages and the petitioner has accepted
the same as full and final settlement of his past dues upto
31/10/2013. The said amount of Rs.3,00,000/- paid to the
petitioner by way of Cheque No. 003066 dated 19/10/2013 drawn
on HDFC Bank, Lodhivali.
2) The Respondent No. 1 and 2 agreed to pay Rs. 10,500/- (all
inclusive cost to Trust/School) to the petitioner from 01.11.2013 as
his regular monthly wages.

3) The Petition be disposed-off on the above terms..”

14. Thus, on the same lines as the earlier compromise, this

Court had disposed of the writ petition in terms of the consent

terms.

15. The consent terms are still in force. In our opinion, till

such time the consent terms are in force, it will not be possible for

us to grant relief to the petitioners in terms of what is prayed for

by the petitioners in these writ petitions. The appropriate remedy

for the petitioners and as observed by this Court in its order dated

15
Ingale 21-wp-11568-2018.odt

22/04/2013, is to initiate appropriate proceedings for having the

consent terms set aside.

16. An objection is raised by Mr. Lohia, learned counsel for the

respondent no. 4 that a specific prayer to that effect has not been

made before the Education Officer. Shri Lohia has made various

other submissions which we do not find necessary to advert to. We

are not going into the merits of the question whether the

petitioners are entitled to the pay scale provided for under the

provisions of MEPS Act. Suffice it to observe that so long as the

consent terms and the compromise entered into by the petitioners

and the Management is in force, it is not possible for us to grant

any relief prayed for in these writ petitions.

17. However, we find that howsoever brief, the mention in

regard to the consent terms being obtained by force and coercion

had been made by the petitioners in the representation dated

29/07/2017 which was addressed by the petitioners to the

Education Officer. No doubt, the order dated 31/10/2017 passed

by the Education Officer is not under challenge. We find that in

the said order of the Education Officer disposing of the

representation made by the petitioners in October 2017, though

16
Ingale 21-wp-11568-2018.odt

there is a reference made to the said representation, the Education

Officer has not dealt with contention of the petitioners that the

compromise has been entered into by force or coercion. In this

view of the matter, in the interest of justice, we pass the following

order.

18. The petitioners are at liberty to file a comprehensive

representation to the Education Officer or to the appropriate forum

challenging the consent terms/compromise entered into by the

petitioners and the Management.

19. If such a representation is made or appropriate proceedings

are initiated, the same shall obviously be taken to its logical

conclusion in accordance with law, expeditiously.

20. Considering that the petitioners have been working for a

long time and as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners

that some of them are on the verge of the retirement, we would

urge the parties to make an attempt to resolve the dispute

amicably with a view to maintaining cordial relations.

21. The writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.

(S.M.MODAK, J.) (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…