✦ Bombay High Court · 07 Aug 2009

Ms. Durga Anup Nandi & Ors. v. Prerna Education Trust & Ors.

Writ Petition No. 5611 of 2008A A SAYED, RANJANA DESAI

Case at a glance

Decided
07 Aug 2009
Bench
A A SAYED, RANJANA DESAI

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 44. We are informed that the earlier Division Bench has imposed costs of Rs.5,000/- on respondent 4 because affidavit in reply is not filed. Application for review is filed by respondent 4. Needless to say that once the appropriate order is passed on the said…

Judgment

Ms. Durga Anup Nandi & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. Prerna Education Trust & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. P.D. Dalvi for the petitioners. Ms. M.P. Thakur, A.G.P. for the State. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 7TH AUGUST, 2009. P.C.:-

1.

The petitioners are trained graduate teachers. They are working in Pet Oxford High School, Punjabi Colony, Ulhasnagar, Thane. The petitioners’ prayer is that respondents 1 and 2 i.e. Prerna Education Trust and Head Mistress, Pet Oxford High School, Ulhasnagar, Thane be directed to fix their pay scale in accordance with the AJN 2 provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, “the MEPS Act”) and Rules framed thereunder.

2.

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3.

Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 states that respondents 1 and 2 will fix the pay scale of the petitioners in accordance with the MEPS Act and Rules framed thereunder and after the fixation of pay scale, payment of salary will be made to them within a period of eight weeks. This statement is accepted.

4.

We are informed that the earlier Division Bench has imposed costs of Rs.5,000/- on respondent 4 because affidavit in reply is not filed. Application for review is filed by respondent 4. Needless to say that once the appropriate order is passed on the said application, the AJN 3 4th respondent will abide by it. In view of the statements made by learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, which we have accepted, the petition does not survive and is disposed of as such. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.]

[A.A. SAYED, J.]

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 5611 of 2008). ← Search more judgments