Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

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