Page 1

1

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

Page 2

2

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

Page 3

3

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.