Pursuant to the order passed by us on 18th August, 2008, Shri Vijay V.
Meshram, the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sonapur Complex, District
Gadchiroli, Maharashtra, the alleged contemnor No.3, is personally present in
Court. Appearing on his behalf, Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel,
has brought to our notice the relevant rules of the Masharashtra Employees of
Private Schools Rules, 1981. The relevant rule, which has been placed by Mr.
Naphade is rule 35, which deals with conditions of suspension and reads as
follows:-
“35.Condition of suspension:(1)In cases where the
Management desires to suspend an employee, he
shall be suspended only with the prior approval of
the appropriate authority mentioned in rule 33.
(2)The period of suspension shall not exceed four
months except with the prior permission of such
appropriate authority.
(3)In case where the employee is suspended with
prior approval, he shall be paid subsistence
allowance under the scheme of payment through
Co-operative Banks for a period of four months
only and thereafter, the payment shall be made
by the Management concerned.
(4)In case where the employee is suspended by the
Management without obtaining prior approval of
the appropriate authority as aforesaid, the
payment of subsistence allowance even during the
first four months of suspension and for further
period thereafter till the completion of inquiry
shall be made by the Management itself.
(5)The subsistence allowance shall not be withheld
except in cases of breach of provisions of sub-rule
(3) or (4) of rule 33.”
As will appear from sub-rule (2), the period of suspension of an employee is not to
exceed four months except with the prior permission of the appropriate authority.
Sub-rule (3) indicates that in case the employee is suspended with prior approval,
he shall be paid subsistence allowance under the scheme of the payment for a
period of four months only and thereafter, the payment shall be made by the
Management concerned. Sub-rule (4) indicates that where the employee is
suspended by the Management without obtaining prior approval of the
appropriate authority, the entire payment of subsistence allowance would have to
be borne by the Management itself.
It has been contended by Mr. Naphade that no prior approval had been
obtained from the authorities before any order of suspension was given effect to.
On behalf of the school authorities, it has been submitted by Mr. Manish
Pitale, learned counsel, that by virtue of the order passed on 07/02/2007 out of
which the contempt petition arises, the petitioner was to be treated as being under
suspension and would be entitled to subsistence allowance as per rules with effect
from the date of termination of his services. According to Mr. Pitale, the
petitioner had never been placed under suspension by the school authorities, but
his suspension took effect having regard to the order passed by this Court on
07/02/2007, and hence the question of obtaining sanction under the rules did not
arise.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, contended that
since in our order we had directed that the petitioner was to be treated to be under
suspension with effect from the date of termination of his services, the petitioner
would be entitled to subsistence allowance from the year 2000 when his services
were terminated.
Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we have to keep in
mind the fact that the contempt proceeding arises out of the said order of
07/02/2007 and the petitioner was to be treated to be under suspension only by
virtue of the order passed by this Court. In our view, since the petitioner was
placed under suspension with effect from 07/02/2007 by virtue of the order passed
by this Court, the period of suspension must be computed from the date of the
order, and not with retrospective effect from the date of termination of his
services.
From the submissions made on behalf of the alleged contemnor of the
parties, and the affidavits filed, it is difficult to arrive at a finding that there was
any deliberate or willful intention to violate the directions passed by this Court on
07/02/2007, as there was some confusion regarding the interpretation of rule 35 of
the above-mentioned rules.
However, in order to do justice to the parties, we dispose of the contempt
petition by taking recourse to sub-rule(3) of rule 35 of the above-mentioned rules,
and direct respondent 1, the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli,
Maharashtra, to pay to the petitioner a lump sum amount of Rs.30,000/- towards
subsistence allowance for a period of four months. In addition, we also direct the
school authorities to pay to the petitioner a further sum of Rs.70,000/-. Such
payments are to be made to the petitioner within four weeks from date.
(MARKANDEY KATJU) NEW DELHI; September 05, 2008.