High Court
Facts
WP 7596/241IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD962 WRIT PETITION NO. 7596 OF 2024DEELIP DIGAMBAR SHINDEVERSUSNEW BHARAT SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL THROUGH ITS SECRETARY ANDOTHERS...Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Patil-Indrale Anand VinayakraoAGP for Respondent 3 : Mr. K.N. Lokhande Advocate for Respondents 2 : Mr. V.D. Gunale...CORAM :ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.Dated:October 04, 2025PER COURT :-1.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2.The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 27.2.2024 passed bythe learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur in Appeal No. 9/2021 only to theextent of clause (6) of the impugned order, which is reproduced as under :-“6.The respondents are directed to pay subsistence allowanceto the appellant from the date of joining till the completion of enquirysubject to conditions as per the M.E.P.S. Act-1977 & Rules-1981 inthat respect.”3.Facts in brief are that petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Master inthe respondent institution and he was dismissed from service after holding an inquiryon 12.2.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged his termination order before theSchool Tribunal, Latur. The School Tribunal by order dated 27.2.2024 partly allowedthe appeal and quashed the termination order dated 22.2.2021 and directed therespondents management to conduct a fresh inquiry of the petitioner as per theM.E.P.S. Act-1977 & Rules-1981 from initial stage i.e. from the statement ofallegations. It was directed that the inquiry to be completed within four months fromthe date of starting inquiry (excluding period of holidays and vacation, if the petitionernot consented for meeting on holiday or vacation). It was also directed that
Legal Reasoning
WP 7596/243employed in the interregnum.7.Having considered the rival submissions, it appears that the termination orderdated 22.2.2021 passed against the petitioner is quashed and set aside by the SchoolTribunal vide order dated 27.2.2024 and respondents are directed to conduct freshinquiry and as such, considering Rule 34 of the MEPS Rules, the petitioner becomesentitled for substance allowance. The present issue is squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Venkatrao Deshmukh Shilwanikar and Anr.cited supra. In para 35 of the judgment, this Court has held as under :-“35. In the light of the above, the petition filed by the management ispartly allowed. Clause 4 of the impugned order granting wages tothe employee during the period of the enquiry is quashed and setaside. The employee shall be treated as being under suspensionfrom 9.4.2009 and management will be under an obligation to payhim suspension allowance as per Rule 34 till the final decision thatwould be arrived at by the management in the light of Rule 37. Saidsuspension allowance will, therefore, have to be paid to theemployee every month.”8.Since the issue is already covered by the judgment of this Court in the case ofVenkatrao Deshmukh Shilwanikar and Anr., cited supra. As regards the judgmentcited by the learned counsel for the respondents is concerned i.e. Deepali GunduSurwase cited supra, the same relates to the backwages by which the terminationorder against the employee is set aside. However, that issue is not before this Court inthis case and the issue before this Court is in respect of entitlement of the petitioneremployee to get the subsistence allowance in terms of Rule 34 of the MEPS Rules.9.In view of the above, the petitioner would be entitled to the suspensionallowance from the date of his termination till the completion of inquiry. Consideringthe above, clause (6) of the impugned order dated 27.2.2024 passed by the learnedPresiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur in Appeal No. 9/2021 would stand modified tothe extent that the petitioner shall be entitled to the substance allowance from thedate of his termination of service i.e. from 22.2.2021 till the conclusion of fresh inquiry.It is the responsibility of the respondents to make payment of the subsistence
Arguments
WP 7596/242respondent Nos. 1 to 2 to reinstate the petitioner without backwages for the purposeof inquiry. It was further directed that the petitioner to remain suspended during theperiod of inquiry. The respondents were further directed to pay subsistence allowanceto the petitioner from the date of joining till the completion of enquiry subject toconditions as per the M.E.P.S. Act-1977 & Rules-1981 in that respect.4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is well settled that when aperson is under suspension, subsistence allowance is required to be paid to suchperson and the petitioner is only seeking substance allowance from the date oftermination which has been quashed and set aside by the learned School Tribunal.The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is not seeking even furtherallowance from the date of suspension till the date of termination and since that is notthe issue before the school tribunal and he does not press that prayer.5.The learned counsel submits that the Tribunal ought to have directed therespondents to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner in terms of Rule 34 ofthe MEPS Act i.e. from 22.2.2021 i.e. from the date of termination till the completion offresh inquiry. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment and order of thisCourt in the case of Venkatrao Deshmukh Shilwanikar and Anr. Vs. SharadShridharrao Deshmukh and Ors. reported in 2016 (4) Bom. C.R. 442.6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits thatpetitioner has not filed affidavit before the Tribunal that he was not working during theperiod he was out of service and that the respondents have suspended the petitionerafter taking due approval from the Education Officer and as such, petitioner is notentitled for any subsistence allowance. The learned counsel submits that in the eventthe petitioner succeeds in this writ petition, he would be entitled for all benefits. Thelearned counsel relied on the judgment of Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. KrantiJunior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and Ors. reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 andsubmits that it was mandatory for the employee to file affidavit that he was not
Decision
WP 7596/244allowance to the petitioner so as to enable him to defend the fresh inquiryproceedings, atleast for part payments. 10.The respondents are at liberty to submit the bills of the petitioner in respect ofthe substance allowance qua the aforesaid period.11.The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner wouldcooperate in conducting the fresh inquiry and would not seek unnecessaryadjournment.12.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. ( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. )ssc/