Motor Insurance Policy Covers Cross-Border Travel If Specifically Authorized By Valid Permit Under MVA: Supreme Court Petrol Pumps Act As 'Commission Agents' For Mahanagar Gas, Liable To Pay Service Tax Under Business Auxiliary Service: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Dilute 'Bangalore Water Supply' Ratio, Affirms Worker Protection Remains The Core Of Industrial Disputes Act Order XXII Rule 9(3) CPC | Application Under Section 5 Limitation Act Must Be Filed Separately To Condonate Delay In Setting Aside Abatement: Supreme Court Principle Of Parity | Supreme Court Extends Benefit Of Fixed-Term Sentence To Co-Accused Based On Remission Period Right To Catch Fish Amounts To 'Profit à Prendre' And Is Compulsorily Registrable As A Lease Under Section 17(1)(d) Registration Act: Supreme Court Supreme Court Mandates Adoption Of Guidelines To Inculcate Sensitivity And Compassion In Judicial Processes For Sexual Offences 'Last Seen' Circumstance Is Weak Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused PSEB | Pre-Regularization Service Must Be Counted As Qualifying Service For Pensionary Benefits: Supreme Court Writ Of Quo Warranto Cannot Be Used For Redress Of Personal Grievances By Unsuccessful Candidates In Selection Process: Supreme Court 'Case Of No Investigation': Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Citing 'Shoddy' Police Work And Lack Of Forensic Evidence 'Status Quo Cannot Be Vacated Without Appropriate Security': Supreme Court Directs Additional ₹200 Crores Deposit In RAKIA-Matrix Case SARFAESI Act | 'Bank' As Assignee Can Invoke Recovery Measures Even If Debt Was Originally Created By Non-Notified Financial Institution: Supreme Court 'CBI Failed Miserably': Supreme Court Tears Into 'Fabricated' Case, Acquits Bank Manager In 35-Year-Old Corruption Trial Mere Delay In Tax Deposit Cannot Be Equated With Non-Payment: Supreme Court Quashes Penalty On Saudi Arabian Airlines Revisional Power Under Section 56 Karnataka Land Revenue Act Cannot Be Invoked Beyond Three-Year Limitation Period: Supreme Court Prosecution Can’t Use Known Locations To Create 'Discovery' Fiction: Supreme Court Rejects Site Plan As Evidence Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage And Long-Term Separation Constitute Valid Grounds For Divorce Under Section 13(1)(ib) HMA: Supreme Court 'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Is A Guideline And Not A Fetish': Supreme Court Acquits Man In 2007 Murder Case Over Fragile Circumstantial Evidence Plea Of Juvenility Is A Jurisdictional Fact; High Court Must Recall Final Judgments Under Section 482 CrPC To Remedy Miscarriage Of Justice: Supreme Court SEBI | Professional Clearing Members Have No Statutory Obligation To Verify Credit/Debit Positions Of Individual Clients Of Trading Members: Supreme Court

Bombay High Court Directs State to Pay Back Wages to Reinstated Teacher: ‘Liability Lies with the Government’

24 August 2024 3:35 PM

By: sayum


High Court mandates State to pay ₹58.38 lakhs in back wages, underscores the State’s primary responsibility in funded institutions. The Bombay High Court has ruled in favor of a reinstated teacher, directing the State Government to pay outstanding back wages amounting to ₹58.38 lakhs. The judgment, delivered by Justice Milind N. Jadhav, clarifies that the liability for salary payments in fully aided institutions primarily rests with the State Government.

The case revolves around Sunanda Wakhare (Petitioner) and Jaiwant Bhaguji Gadekar & Ors. (Respondents). Sunanda Wakhare, an Education Officer, challenged the Executing Court’s orders that mandated the recovery of ₹58.38 lakhs in back wages and threatened arrest for non-compliance.

Respondent No. 1, an Assistant Teacher, was terminated by the school (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) and subsequently reinstated with full back wages by the School Tribunal’s order on June 25, 2002. Despite various legal maneuvers and appeals, the judgment in favor of the teacher became final and unchallenged.

Justice Jadhav emphasized the State Government’s responsibility in cases involving fully aided institutions. The court noted that the judgment debtor, in this case, is the Education Officer, representing the State Government, and thus, the State cannot shirk its liability to pay the back wages.

The court underscored that the School Tribunal’s order dated June 25, 2002, which directed the reinstatement of the teacher with full back wages, has attained finality. “The State Government cannot absolve itself from its responsibility to comply with the tribunal’s directive,” Justice Jadhav remarked.

Justice Jadhav relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Educational Society, Tumsar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., which establishes that the State Government is primarily liable for salary payments in fully aided institutions. The court rejected the State’s argument that the liability lies solely with the institution.

Justice Jadhav stated, “The State Government, once having failed to challenge the judgment passed by the School Tribunal, cannot indulge in any further protraction of the said judgment by resorting to issuance of correspondence.”

The High Court’s judgment mandates the State Government to calculate and pay the full outstanding back wages to the reinstated teacher within a stipulated period, emphasizing the government’s role in funded educational institutions. This ruling reinforces the legal principle that the primary liability for salary payments in such institutions lies with the State, setting a significant precedent for similar cases in the future.

Date of Decision: July 30, 2024

Sunanda Wakhare vs. Jaiwant Bhaguji Gadekar & Ors.

Latest Legal News