138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad High 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