MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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