Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2838/2000 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2838 of 2000
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
NEW
EDUCATION SOCIETY - Petitioner(s)
Versus
RAMESHCHANDRA
NATHALAL PRAJAPATI & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
MAMTA R VYAS for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR MUKUL SINHA for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
ANAND L SHARMA for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR DEVANG VYAS, AGP for
Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 31/03/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The
petitioner is the school management. The petitioner has challenged
an order dated 20.1.2000 passed by the Education Tribunal in three
separate proceedings instituted by the parties. Respondent no.1 is a
teacher whose services are at centre of this legal controversy.
It
is not in dispute that though respondent no.1 was terminated from
service in the year 1990, during the pendency of the proceedings
before the tribunal, he was reinstated in service with effect from
25.3.1996. Tribunal therefore, while disposing of the proceedings
did not go into question of reinstatement of the teacher, however,
awarded back-wages for the intervening period and also clarified
that teacher shall continue to receive back-wages.
After
some discussion at bar, learned advocate Shri Sinha for respondent
no.1 stated under instructions that if other service conditions are
left unaltered, respondent no.1 would be willing to forgo
back-wages for the interregnum period from the year 1990 when he was
terminated, till 25.3.1996, when he was actually reinstated in
service.
In
view of above concession, entire controversy gets substantially
narrowed down. Respondent no.1 teacher is continued in service right
from the year 1996 till date. Though by order dated 11.7.2007,
learned Single Judge of this Court had clarified that petitioner
shall be at liberty to initiate the procedure for terminating his
services, admittedly, no further steps have been initiated by the
school management. Presumption therefore, would arise that on the
basis of factors obtaining as on today, there is no need to dispense
with the service of respondent No.1.
Under
the circumstances, the order of the tribunal insofar as it protects
service conditions of the teacher and his regular scale is
confirmed. On the concession of respondent no.1 it is declared that
he shall not be entitled to idle wages for the period between 1990
i.e. from the date of termination till 25.3.1996 i.e. the date on
which actually he was reinstated. It is however, clarified that
services of respondent no.1 shall be considered continuous for all
purposes other than back-wages.
Petition
is disposed of accordingly.
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(raghu)
Top