act no. vii of 1870 (court fees act), schedule ii, article 5; section 7, clause xi - suit for declaration that plaintiff' is an occupancy tenant--act (local) no. ii of 1901 (agra tenancy act), section 95--court fee. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978
[act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised.....tudball, j.1. this is an appeal in a suit brought by the appellant for a declaration under section 95 of the tenancy act, that he has occupancy rights in a certain holding. the suit is purely a declaratory suit. the question is what is the court fee payable on the appeal. prima facie the suit falls clearly within schedule ii, article 5, of the court fees act, which lays down that on a plaint or memorandum of appeal in a suit to establish or disprove a right of occupancy a court fee of eight annas should be paid. the only difficulty in the case arises by reason of two previous judges of this court having in similar cases directed that a fee of rs. 10 was payable. in neither of these decisions was schedule ii, article 5, apparently considered. the suit is not one to which section 7, clause xi, of the court fees act is applicable. as i have said above, it is purely a declaratory suit, and nothing more, in which the plaintiff seeks to establish that he has a right of occupancy. in my opinion the law is plain and the appeal is governed by schedule ii, article 5, of the court fees act and the court fee payable is eight annas according thereto. i so direct.