THROUGH ITS SECRETARY ANDANOTHERVERSUSRAVINDRA PRABHULAL MUNDANKAR AND ANOTHERMr v. D. Sapkal, Senior
Legal Reasoning
iqjlhl**(ii)Pursuant to the said compromise, the petitioner Managementis said to have forwarded the proposal for the approval of theemployment of the respondents. Since the approval is negatived by theCompetent Authority, Writ Petition bearing No. 1738 of 2018 came to bepreferred. The said petition is pending before Division Bench of thisCourt.(iii)In the meantime petitioner Management issued order dated01/11/2021 terminating the services of the respondents from30/11/2021. However, subsequently the said order was withdrawn. Afresh order came to be issued on 06/12/2021 terminating their servicesw.e.f. 08/12/2021. Even before this order could be passed, certain civilapplications were moved for the purpose of seeking review, a review ofthe orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1738/2018.(iv)Since the services of the respondents were terminated byorder dated 06/12/2021, appeal came to be preferred under Section 81of the Act in Appeal No. 02/2022. After hearing both sides andconsidering the material evidence on record the learned Presiding Officerof the University and College Tribunal passed impugned order, wherebythe appeal came to be allowed with the order as indicated herein above.4.Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has made elaborate933.wp7679.23.odt4 of 7 submissions on the issues involved herein. At the outset it is hiscontention that the Tribunal has committed error in relying upon theorders passed by this Court at interim stage rather than deciding theissue on merit of the case. He has further grievance to make in respectof the impugned order to the effect that the Tribunal has considered thecompromise terms only in part which were favourable to the respondentsand in fact the the Court ought to have taken into account thecompromise as a whole. This according to him has resulted intorecording of the erroneous finding which needs interference at the handsof this Court. He further drew attention of the Court to the various orderspassed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1738/2018 to contend thatthose orders were passed at interim stage and could not have beenmade on the basis or passing the impugned order by the Tribunal. In anycase it is his grievance that the Tribunal has not applied its mind and haspassed order of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wagessubject to the final decision of pending Writ Petition No. 1738/2018. Thisaccording to him is wholly impermissible in law.5.Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugnedorders.6.At the outset it needs to be recorded that the issue beforethe Tribunal was with regard to the legality of the termination of the933.wp7679.23.odt5 of 7 respondents effected by letter dated 06/12/2021. There is no disputeabout the fact that before the Tribunal, the previous proceedings moreparticularly the terms of compromise filed in Appeal No. 02/2011 wereplaced on record. Though now it is sought to be contended by thepetitioner Management that the services of the respondents wereterminated for the reason that they were not regularly employed againstthe permanent vacant post. This however, runs contrary to the terms ofcompromise where in clause No.2 clearly indicates that respondents wereemployed on approved vacant full time post. This aspect has been rightlytaken into consideration by the Tribunal while passing impugned order.The question arises as to whether a fault can be found in the impugnedorder that the learned Tribunal has not recorded all the terms ofcompromise in the order impugned. Though the order impugnedindicates that the terms of compromise up to clause No.3 were notreproduced, however for all practical purposes entire compromise termsare taken into consideration by the Tribunal which is reflected from theobservations made from paragraph 60 onwards of the said judgment.Those observations clearly indicate that the Tribunal was conscious of thefact that issue with regard to the payment of back wages and salary etc.would be dependent upon the terms of compromise so also outcome ofthe Writ Petition No. 1738/2018. When it was brought to the notice ofthe Tribunal that the petition is pending before the High Court and the933.wp7679.23.odt6 of 7
Arguments
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD933 WRIT PETITION NO. 7681 OF 2023WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10326 OF 2024KHANDESH EDUCATION SOCIETY THROUGH ITS SECRETARY ANDANOTHERVERSUSMAHAVEER PRAVIN JAIN AND ANOTHERANDWRIT PETITION NO. 7679 OF 2023WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10329 OF 2024KHANDESH EDUCATION SOCIETY THROUGH ITS SECRETARY ANDANOTHERVERSUSRAVINDRA PRABHULAL MUNDANKAR AND ANOTHERMr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Manish Navandar a/w Mr. AmitGadekar, Advocate for the petitionersMr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for the respondent/StateMr. B. R. Warmaa, Advocate for respondent No.1.CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.DATE: 19th MARCH, 2025PER COURT :-1.By consent of both sides, these petitions are heard finally atthe stage of admission and decided by common judgment, since bothpetitions involve similar questions of fact and law.2.These petitions take exception to the order dated 13/06/2023passed in Appeal Nos. NMU-2 of 2022 and 1 of 2022 preferred by therespondent No.1, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the said appeals by933.wp7679.23.odt1 of 7 passing following order;“(i) Appeal is allowed.(ii) Impugned termination order, dated 6.12.2021 madeeffective from 8.12.2021 passed by respondent Nos.1and 2 is set aside.(iii) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed toreinstatement appellant with continuity of service andback wages as directed by Hon’ble High Court videinterim order, dated 24.2.2020 passed in Writ PetitionNo.1738 of 2018 from their own pocket.(iv) The order of reinstatement with continuity of serviceand back wages will be subject to final decision ofpending Writ Petition No. 1738 of 2018.(v) Parties to bear their own costs.”3.The facts which led to the filing of these petitions can benarrated in brief as under:(i)The respondents employees were employed by thepetitioner- divisional institution as ‘Clerk’ and ‘Peon’ some time around2003. On 01/06/2011 their services were claimed to have beenterminated orally and hence, Appeal bearing No. 2/2011 came to bepreferred before the University Appellate Tribunal under Section 81 ofthe Maharashtra Public Universities Act (for short ‘the Act’). In the saidappeal compromise took place between the parties. The appeal came tobe allowed in terms of the compromise by order dated 20/04/2017. Theorder passed by the University and College Tribunal and the terms of thesettlement between the parties are reproduced herein below;“ORDERAppellant is present. Counsels for both sides arepresent. Appellant and respondents have entered intocompromise. The terms of compromise read over and933.wp7679.23.odt2 of 7 explained. Appellant admits that the said terms are trueand correct to the best of his knowledge and admits thesignature of compromise purshis. Respondents no.1 and 2whose signatures are attested and identified by Shri.Vinod Patil Advocate. The appellant is identified by Smt.Ujjwal Agrawal Advocate. So, the compromise purshis isverified, read and recorded. The compromise pursis shallbe the part and parcel of appeal bearing No. NMU-02/2011.”^^rMtksM iqjlhlojhy izdj.kkr vihykFkhZ o lkeusokyk dz- 1 o 2 ;kaP;ke/;s[kkyhyizek.ks rMtksM vkgs- [kkyh uewn dsysY;k vVhps ikyu nksUghi{kkaoj ca/kudkjd vlqu es- U;k;ky;kus ojhy izdj.k rMtksMhP;kvVhuqlkj fudkyh dk<kos gh fouarh-1½O;oLFkkiukus ¼lkeusokyk dz-1 o 2½ vihykFkhZpk cMrQhZpk rksaMhfnysyk vkns’k vkt jksth jn~n dsykj vkgs-2½vihykFkhZP;k O;oLFkkiukus izFke use.kwdh iklqu lsok lkrR;ns.;kps ekU; dsys vkgs o R;kph iqu%LFkkiukgh eatqj fjdkE;k iq.kZosGtkxsoj dsyh vkgs-3½O;oLFkkukus vihykFkhZps izFke use.kqdh iklqu lsok lkrR; ns.;kpsekU; dsys-4½vihykFkhZus fnukad 1@8@2010 iklwu rs gh rMtksM i=dkoj djsi;ZarP;k fnukdkadi;ZarP;k loZ ixkjkph vkfFkZd ekx.kh lksMwu fnyh vkgs-vihykFkhZ lnjP;k dkGkrhy osru Hkfo”;kr d/khgh ekx.kh dj.kkjukgh-5½vihykFkhZus fnukad 10@1@2017 iklqu iqoZor inLFkkiuk d:udkekoj :t d:u ?ks.;kps lkeusokyk dz- 1 o 2 ;kauh ekU; dsys vkgs-6½vihykFkhZ dkekoj :tw >kY;kiklqu ‘kklukdMqu fu;fer osruJs.khfeG.;kl ik= jkfgy vls O;oLFkkiukus ekU; dsys vkgs- ijarq‘kklukdMqu fu;fer osruJs.kh u feGkY;kl r;kl O;oLFkkiu tckcnkjjkg.kkj ukgh-7½lsok ts”Brk ;k dkj.kklkBh fnukad 9@8@2010 gk ekud fnukadBjfoyk vkgs8½O;oLFkkiukus gh rMtksM >kY;kiklqu 30 fnolkps vkr es-lglapkyd] mPp f’k{k.k] tGxkao ;kaP;kdMs vihykFkhZpk ekU;rk izLrkolknj djrhy- dks.kR;kgh dkj.kkLro vFkok lcchoj izLrko lknjdj.;kl foyac dj.kkj ukgh-djhrk vihykFkhZ u lkeusokyk dz- 1 o 2 rQsZ gh rMtksM933.wp7679.23.odt3 of 7
Decision
issue which has a direct bearing on the back wages and salary payable tothe respondents in subjudice, it was not open for the Tribunal to ignorethe said fact and to pass any independent order and any order so passedwould always be subject to outcome of petitions. In the circumstances,the order passed by the Tribunal making the payment of back wages,salary etc. subject to outcome of the Writ Petition No. 1738/2018 isperfectly justified. Had it been done otherwise it was said to have been aerror committed by the Tribunal.7.In so far as the legality of termination is concerned, once thecompromise terms have become final wherein the Management hascandidly accepted the facts about the employment of the respondents ofsanctioned vacant full time post, it was not open for the Management totake the stand that therein employment is not against the sanction postas indicated in the order of termination dated 06/12/2021.8.Having regard to the facts of the case, observations made byTribunal with regard to the malafide intention on the part of theManagement to terminate the services cannot be faulted with. As a resultof which, this Courts finds no merit in the petitions, petitions standdismissed. Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of.(R. M. JOSHI, J.)ssp933.wp7679.23.odt7 of 7