IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5268 OF 2008 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.8163 of 2006]

MUNICIPAL  CORPORATION  OF GREATER MUMBAI

.......APPELLANT(S)  

Versus

LAXMI HARISH SHARMA & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.  Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The first respondent was a teacher in the third  respondent school run by the

second  respondent  Trust.   She  was  appointed  in the  year 1990  and confirmed  on

24.6.1993.   Within  one  month  thereafter,  by  letter  dated  21.7.1993,  the  school

management informed the first respondent that her services were terminated with effect

from 31.7.1993 on account of reduction in the student strength in Standard-II.   Even

though  the  Superintendent  of  the  Schools  Section  of  the  appellant  Municipal

Corporation, by letter dated 11.9.1993, directed the school management to reinstate the

first respondent, she was not reappointed.  The first respondent therefore approached

the High Court in W.P. No.1879 of 1993.  The High Court, by judgment dated 30.8.2005

has allowed the writ petition.  It  held that  the   school   management  could  not

terminate the  

.......2.

- 2 -

services of a teacher on the ground of reduction in number of students in a division

without  the  approval  of  the  school  department  of  the  Municipal  Corporation.

Incidentally it also referred to certain action of the officials of the appellant-Corporation

which according to the Court were not satisfactory.  The Court has chosen to term

certain act of one of the officers of the Corporation as 'an act intended to mislead the

Court'.  Ultimately, the High Court directed that first respondent be reinstated from the

date on which she was terminated with 50% backwages.  The Court also directed the

appellant Municipal Corporation to pay the said backwages to the first respondent and

thereafter recover it from the management as well as from its own officers who are found

liable after taking action for fixing liability on that behalf.

3. The  school  management  has  accepted  the  said  judgment.   It  has  not

challenged the order of  the High Court.   On the other hand,  it  has filed a counter

affidavit in this Court on 26.7.2006 stating that in compliance of the order of the High

Court, the first respondent had been reinstated. It has also submitted that it supports

the order directing the payment of 50% backwages in principle.

4. The  grievance of the  appellant  Municipal Corporation  

.....3.

- 3 -

is  in regard to the observation against its officers and the direction to recover 50%

backwages not only from the management but also from its own officers who are found

liable after fixing liability.

5. On an examination of facts and circumstances, we feel that the direction to the

appellant  to  hold  an enquiry and fix responsibility on  the  officers  of  the  appellant

appears to be unwarranted.  Similarly, the Court's observation that the submission of an

officer of a Corporation that the first respondent could have filed an appeal under Rule

20 of Appendix-VII of the Grant-in-Aid Code, amounted to misleading the Court was

also unwarranted.  Mere wrong statement of law does  not amount to misleading the

Court.   

6. A grievance is also made that the High Court ought not to have directed the

appellant Municipal Corporation to pay the amount and thereafter recover it from the

school management.  It  is submitted that only the school management ought to have

been directed  to  pay the  amount.   It  is,  however,  not  disputed  that  the  appellant

corporation  will  not  be  put  to  any  loss  as  it  can  recover  the  amount  from  the

management.

7. It   is  not,  therefore,  necessary  to  examine  the  

........4.

- 4 -

contention of the appellant that the Court ought to have directed the school management

to directly pay the amount to the first respondent instead of  directing the appellant

Municipal Corporation to pay the amount and recover it from the school management.

That question is left open.

8. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the matter can be disposed of by

deleting the direction to fix responsibility on the part of the officers of the corporation

and the direction to  recover any amount from its  own officers.   We also delete  the

observation that any officer of the Corporation attempted to mislead  the  Court. As a

result, the  appellant Municipal Corporation will have to now pay the 50% backwages

amount to the first respondent, if it has not already been paid, and recover the same

from the management as per the direction of the High Court.  The appellant Municipal

Corporation is given eight weeks' time to make payment.  The appeal is disposed of

accordingly.

  ...........................J.    ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi;    ...........................J. August 27, 2008.           ( LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA )