MAHARASHTRA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA & ANR. Vs. DILIP GANPATRAO LANJEWAR & ANR.

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 757 of 2008, Judgment Date: Mar 22, 2017

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 757 OF 2008


MAHARASHTRA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA & ANR.                            Appellant(s)

                                  VERSUS

DILIP  GANPATRAO LANJEWAR & ANR.                              Respondent(s)


                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.
1.    Respondent No. 1 was appointed initially for a  period  of  10  months
i.e.  from  01.07.1990  to  30.04.1991.   After  a  period  of  two   months
(apparently summer vacation), the respondent was again appointed as  teacher
for a period of 10 months.  Thereafter, he was discontinued from service.

2.    The respondent challenged the same before the  School  Tribunal.   The
Tribunal held that the discontinuance was illegal.  Therefore, an order  was
passed to reinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits.

3.    The same was challenged by the appellant – Management before the  High
Court.  The writ petition was dismissed.  The appellant  still  pursued  the
matter before the Division Bench in an intra-court appeal.  The  appeal  was
also dismissed.
Hence, this appeal.

4.    Mr. A. V. Mohta, learned senior counsel appearing for the  appellants,
placing heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in Hindustan  Education
Society and Anr. Vs. S. K. Kaleem S. K. Gulam Nabi and  Ors.  (Civil  Appeal
No. 1971 of 1997) dated  10.03.1997,  submits  that  the  respondent  having
accepted an appointment for a fixed period, cannot claim continuance in  the
school.  However, on the facts, we find that it was an  appointment  against
a permanent vacancy, which is not disputed either  before  the  Tribunal  or
before the High Court.

5.    In that view of the matter, we are also of  the  view  that  the  High
Court has rightly distinguished the  case  of  Hindustan  Education  Society
(supra) with the present case.

6.    The respondent has been out of service since 1992.   We  are  informed
that he would be otherwise due to superannuate in  the  year  2019.   Having
regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the  case,  we  are  of  the
view that this is a case where the respondent  should  not  be  granted  the
backwages and except that, he  should  be  entitled  to  all  other  service
benefits.   Therefore,  this  appeal  is  disposed  of  with  the  following
directions :-
i)    The interim order granted by this Court is vacated.
ii)   The respondent shall be reinstated in service forthwith.
iii) The respondent shall be entitled  to  all  service  benefits  including
continuity of service for all purposes, except the actual backwages for  the
period he has not worked in the school.
      No costs.
                                                   .......................J.
                                                           [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]


                                                   .......................J.
                                                            [ R. BANUMATHI ]

      New Delhi;
      March 22, 2017.