The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition instituted by Somaiya Trust to challenge the Mumbai University and College Tribunal’s order dated 09.04.2014, that decreed the reinstatement of the respondent, a college lecturer. Finding that her dismissal was based on a grossly disproportionate and misconstrued charge, the Tribunal upheld her entitlement to all service and retirement benefits.
The case stemmed from the respondent’s dismissal by the college in 2007, following repeated complaints filed by her about denial of legitimate promotions, grade placements, and research opportunities, as well as a harassment complaint against the college principal. The college treated these complaints as false and defamatory, initiating an enquiry and dismissing her in 2007 for “moral turpitude”.
Despite the Tribunal’s order, the respondent was never reinstated, and she attained the retirement age in 2022 without the option to return or formally retire from her post.
The Bench comprising Justice Milind N. Jadhav, addressing both the merits and the fact of her retirement, strongly rejected the college’s stand, holding that the respondent’s actions reflected legitimate grievances about service benefits and could not, by any standard, amount to “moral turpitude”.
Referencing Supreme Court precedents such as Educational Society, Tumsar and Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade vs State of Maharashtra [1], the Court clarified that in fully aided institutions, the State is responsible for service benefits and salary to wrongfully terminated staff when their termination is set aside.
The Court confirmed the Tribunal’s order to the extent of the respondent’s notional reinstatement until her retirement in 2022. It further modified the Tribunal order to direct full payment of all consequential benefits, including retirement dues, and interest @ 7% per annum on the entire arrears amount.
The State Government was granted liberty to recover the amount payable from the college. Finally, at the request of the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the Joint Director of Higher Education, the High Court stayed its own judgment for four weeks to enable the State to challenge the same.
[1] (2016) 3 SCC 512
For the Petitioners: Mr. Lancy D’Souza a/w. Mr. K. K. Jadhav and Mr. J. K. Jadhav, Advocates
For the Respondent No.1: Dr. Uday Warunjikar, Advocate appointed through legal aid a/w Mr. Jenish Dinesh Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2 (): Ms. Swetabja Mondal, Advocate i/by Rui Rodrigues
For the Respondent No.3 (Joint Director of Higher Education): Ms. Vaishali Nimbalkar, AGP