Order Denying Permission for Peaceful Protest Rally Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Prolonged Custody Alone Cannot Justify Bail In Cases Involving Heinous Crimes: Delhi High Court Body Shaming and Sexually Colored Remarks Are Unacceptable In A Civilized Society: Kerala High Court No Mandatory Injunction Where Failure to Prove Ownership and Possession: Punjab and Haryana High Court Supreme Court Dismisses Article 32 Petition Seeking Declaration of Bombay High Court Judgment as Illegal Specific Relief Act | Power to Extend Time Under Section 28 Is Discretionary and Must Be Exercised Prudently: Supreme Court Failure To Comply With Statutory Mandate Under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC Renders Ex Parte Injunction Unsustainable: Karnataka High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Withdrawal of Cabinet's Recommendations for Legislative Council Nominations Supreme Court Reduces Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide in Absence of Premeditation and Motive Desertion Means More Than Physical Separation, Includes Willful Neglect: Delhi High Court Director’s Liability Under Section 138 NI Act Ends with Resignation: Supreme Court Quashes Complaint Against Former Director in Cheque Dishonor Case No Proof, No Ownership: Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Baseless Inheritance Suit Judicial Orders of Civil Courts Not Amenable to Article 226 Writ Jurisdiction: Patna High Court Chastity of a Woman Is a Priceless Possession; Unfounded Allegations Justify Wife’s Right to Live Separately: Orissa High Court Temporary Injunction Denied Based on Unstamped and Unregistered Agreement: Madhya Pradesh High Court Temple Surplus Funds Cannot Be Used for Shopping Complex Construction: Madras High Court Bail | Evidence Is Primarily Documentary And Already Recovered, Custodial Interrogation Of The Accused Is Not Necessary: Kerala High Court Delhi High Court Directs Respondents to Secure ₹157.75 Crores in Gas Supply Dispute Under Section 9 of Arbitration Act Arrest of Woman Post-Sunset Without Prior Judicial Permission Illegal: Bombay 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.

Similar News