A. Bharathi Vs. A.P. Residential Educational Institution Society - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- 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 by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, 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. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. orderg. bikshapathy, j.1. the writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent to treat the period from 27-9-1995 to 20-12-1996 as on duty and also arrange payment of salary and allowances for the said period to the petitioner. the petitioner was working as a trained graduate teacher in telugu at a.p. residential school for girls, vangara and she was transferred from vangara to hasanparthy by orders dated 27-5-1995. accordingly, she was relieved at vangara and she reported at hasanparthy on 7-6-1995 duly relieving smt. rama rani, who was posted to vangara. however, smt. rama rani filed writ petition no. 11227 of 1995 challenging her transfer from hasanparthy to vangara. on 13-6-1995, the principal of the a.p. residential school for girls, hasanparthy intimated the authorities that the petitioner joined at hasanparthy on 7-6-1995. this court in w.p.m.p. no. 13757/95 directed the respondents to continue smt. rama rani at hasanparthy. since the said order was not complied with, smt. rama rani filed a contempt case in c.c. no. 465 of 1995. when notice was served, the respondent appeared before this court on 25-9-1995 and stated that smt. rama rani was relieved on 7-6-1995 and that re- posting orders were issued to smt. rama rani. against the orders passed by this court on 25-9-1995, the petitioner filed contempt appeal no. 6 of 1995. the division bench, while admitting the contempt appeal on 29-9-1995, ordered status quo. however, the petitioner was relieved by the principal, a.p. residential school for girls, hasanparthy on 4-10-1995.2. the writ petition was finally allowed by the learned single judge on 7-8-1996. against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the division bench of this court set aside the order of the single judge upholding the order of transfer. consequently, the respondent issued proceedings dated 20-12-1996 by which again the petitioner joined at hasanparthy. the case of the petitioner is that she was not paid the salary from 27-09-1995 to 20-12-1996 on account of her not relieving smt. rama rani from duty at hasanparthy. therefore, she seeks appropriate orders from this court. it is also her case that the management directed her to apply for leave which is also contrary to law.3. in the counter filed by the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner was transferred on 27-5-1995 and she reported for duty on 7-6-1995. however, the said transfer orders were challenged by smt. rama rani.4. on 14-6-1995 this court passed interim orders in writ petition no. 11227 of 1995 to continue smt. rama rani at hasanparthy. thereafter, in pursuance of the orders passed in c.c. no. 465 of 1995 and c.a. no. 6 of 1995, the management issued proceedings dated 25-9-1995 treating the order of transfer of the petitioner as cancelled and the petitioner was directed to report at vangara. therefore, till such time she was asked to report at vangara, she was paid salary. since the petitioner did not report at vangara in pursuance of the orders of the respondent she was not paid the salary for the period from 27-9-1995 to 20-12-1996 basing on the principle of 'no work no pay'.5. learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the petitioner was relieved on 4-10-1995 at hasanparthy and that the relieving order did not specify as to where she should report back. even at vangara already another teacher was posted and, therefore, the petitioner could not join at vangara. hence, for the lapses of the respondent, the petitioner cannot be denied her salary for the period from 27-9-1995 to 20-12-1996. it is also stated that smt. rama rani was paid the salaries for three months and the case of the petitioner should also be considered on the same lines.6. i have considered the contentions of the rival parties. i am unable to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. admittedly, in the instant case, transfer order was challenged by smt. rama rani and this court directed the respondents to continue smt. rama rani at hasanparthy. thereafter, she filed c.c.465 of 1995 for non-compliance of the orders of this court and later, she was reposted to hasanparthy in pursuance of the orders passed in the contempt case. therefore, on 25-9-1995, on which date orders were passed in the contempt case, the order of transfer dated 27-5-1995 stood cancelled. thereafter, the petitioner ought to have reported at vangara from where she was transferred to hasanparthy. the grievance of the petitioner is that she could not report at vangara as already another teacher is posted and she could not physically displace her. the said contention is not sustainable. when she had to report at vangara, she ought to have submitted her joining report irrespective of the fact as to whether there is a vacancy or not. having not done so, she is not entitled for any salary as prayed for.7. in the circumstances, i do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

G. Bikshapathy, J.

1. The Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent to treat the period from 27-9-1995 to 20-12-1996 as on duty and also arrange payment of salary and allowances for the said period to the petitioner. The petitioner was working as a trained graduate teacher in Telugu at A.P. Residential School for Girls, Vangara and she was transferred from Vangara to Hasanparthy by orders dated 27-5-1995. Accordingly, she was relieved at Vangara and she reported at Hasanparthy on 7-6-1995 duly relieving Smt. Rama Rani, who was posted to Vangara. However, Smt. Rama Rani filed Writ Petition No. 11227 of 1995 challenging her transfer from Hasanparthy to Vangara. On 13-6-1995, the Principal of the A.P. Residential School for Girls, Hasanparthy intimated the authorities that the petitioner joined at Hasanparthy on 7-6-1995. This Court in W.P.M.P. No. 13757/95 directed the respondents to continue Smt. Rama Rani at Hasanparthy. Since the said order was not complied with, Smt. Rama Rani filed a Contempt Case in C.C. No. 465 of 1995. When notice was served, the respondent appeared before this Court on 25-9-1995 and stated that Smt. Rama Rani was relieved on 7-6-1995 and that re- posting orders were issued to Smt. Rama Rani. Against the orders passed by this Court on 25-9-1995, the petitioner filed Contempt Appeal No. 6 of 1995. The Division Bench, while admitting the Contempt Appeal on 29-9-1995, ordered status quo. However, the petitioner was relieved by the Principal, A.P. Residential School for Girls, Hasanparthy on 4-10-1995.

2. The Writ Petition was finally allowed by the learned Single Judge on 7-8-1996. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the Division Bench of this Court set aside the order of the Single Judge upholding the order of transfer. Consequently, the respondent issued proceedings dated 20-12-1996 by which again the petitioner joined at Hasanparthy. The case of the petitioner is that she was not paid the salary from 27-09-1995 to 20-12-1996 on account of her not relieving Smt. Rama Rani from duty at Hasanparthy. Therefore, she seeks appropriate orders from this Court. It is also her case that the management directed her to apply for leave which is also contrary to law.

3. In the counter filed by the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner was transferred on 27-5-1995 and she reported for duty on 7-6-1995. However, the said transfer orders were challenged by Smt. Rama Rani.

4. On 14-6-1995 this Court passed interim orders in Writ Petition No. 11227 of 1995 to continue Smt. Rama Rani at Hasanparthy. Thereafter, in pursuance of the orders passed in C.C. No. 465 of 1995 and C.A. No. 6 of 1995, the management issued proceedings dated 25-9-1995 treating the order of transfer of the petitioner as cancelled and the petitioner was directed to report at Vangara. Therefore, till such time she was asked to report at Vangara, she was paid salary. Since the petitioner did not report at Vangara in pursuance of the orders of the respondent she was not paid the salary for the period from 27-9-1995 to 20-12-1996 basing on the principle of 'no work no pay'.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the petitioner was relieved on 4-10-1995 at Hasanparthy and that the relieving order did not specify as to where she should report back. Even at Vangara already another teacher was posted and, therefore, the petitioner could not join at Vangara. Hence, for the lapses of the respondent, the petitioner cannot be denied her salary for the period from 27-9-1995 to 20-12-1996. It is also stated that Smt. Rama Rani was paid the salaries for three months and the case of the petitioner should also be considered on the same lines.

6. I have considered the contentions of the rival parties. I am unable to accept the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, in the instant case, transfer order was challenged by Smt. Rama Rani and this Court directed the respondents to continue Smt. Rama Rani at Hasanparthy. Thereafter, she filed C.C.465 of 1995 for non-compliance of the orders of this Court and later, she was reposted to Hasanparthy in pursuance of the orders passed in the contempt case. Therefore, on 25-9-1995, on which date orders were passed in the contempt case, the order of transfer dated 27-5-1995 stood cancelled. Thereafter, the petitioner ought to have reported at Vangara from where she was transferred to Hasanparthy. The grievance of the petitioner is that she could not report at Vangara as already another teacher is posted and she could not physically displace her. The said contention is not sustainable. When she had to report at Vangara, she ought to have submitted her joining report irrespective of the fact as to whether there is a vacancy or not. Having not done so, she is not entitled for any salary as prayed for.

7. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.