Vrushali V. Joshi JUDGMENT
A.S. Chandurkar, J.
1. The petitioner came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher at respondent no.6-Junior College that is being run by respondent no.5-Management. The services of the petitioner came to be approved on 18/10/2013 for a period of two years. By Government Resolution dated 30/6/2014, the School was held entitled to partial grant-in-aid. The benefit in that regard came to be enhanced as per the policy of the State Government. The services of the petitioner came to be dispensed with on 27/6/2017. The petitioner on 28/6/2017 made a representation seeking salary for the period from 1/1/2011 to 28/6/2017. The representation made by the petitioner was replied by the Management on 8/7/2017 stating therein that since the services of the petitioner were approved on no grant basis, it was the responsibility of the Education Officer (Secondary) to release her salary. On that count, the Management refused to make any payment to her. In this backdrop, the present Writ Petition has been filed on 31/7/2017 praying that the Management and the School be directed to pay the petitioner her salary from 1/1/2011 to 28/6/2017.
2. In the reply filed by the Management and the School, the entitlement of the petitioner is denied. It has been stated that though the School was held entitled for partial grant to the extent of 60% from 2011-12 which grant came to be enhanced subsequently, the same was only on paper and no funds were actually received by the School. By filing an additional affidavit, it has been further stated that while accepting the petitioner's resignation on 11/5/2017, the petitioner was paid all arrears which was an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-in cash. The petitioner however refused to give any acknowledgment in that regard. On these counts, it was stated that no relief was liable to be granted to the petitioner.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks to rely upon the decisions in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust And Others Vs. V.R. Rudani And Others [MANU/SC/0028/1989 : (1989) 2 SCC 691] and K. Krishnamacharyulu And Others Vs. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering And Another [MANU/SC/1113/1997 : (1997) 3 SCC 571] to urge that the Writ Petition as filed was maintainable and the Management as well as the School were duty bound to pay the petitioner her arrears of salary.
On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Management and the School has relied upon the decisions in i) Sushmita Basu And Others Vs. Ballygunge Siksha Samity And Others [MANU/SC/8515/2006 : (2006) 7 SCC 680]; ii) Satimbla Sharma And Others Vs. St Paul's Senior Secondary School And Others [MANU/SC/0929/2011 : (2011) 13 SCC 760]; iii) Committee of Management, Delhi Public School And Another Vs. M.K. Gandhi And Others [MANU/SC/8433/2007 : (2015) 17 SCC 353]; and iv) St. Mary's Education Society And Another Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava And Others [MANU/SC/1042/2022 : (2023) 4 SCC 498]. It is submitted that since the petitioner was seeking enforcement of her rights that were personal to her, the Writ Petition was not maintainable and no relief could be granted.
4. At the outset, we may state that the petitio........