Judgment : 1. Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The jurisdictional issue that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is, whether in an appeal filed under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short the said Act), the School Tribunal is empowered to issue interim directions to the management to pay subsistence allowance? 3. The facts relevant for answering aforesaid question are that the respondent no.1 was appointed on the post of Senior Lecturer in the petitioner No. 2 Institution vide order of appointment dated 30.06.1999. During the course of employment a charge sheet came to be served upon the respondent no.1 on 25.08.2011 and the respondent no.1 was put under suspension on 26.08.2011. In the order of suspension it was stated that the respondent no.1 would be entitled to subsistence allowance as per Rules. After holding inquiry in the matter, the services of respondent no.1 came to be terminated on 13.06.2012. The respondent no.1 challenged aforesaid order of termination by preferring appeal under Section 9 of the said Act. In said appeal the respondent no.1 moved application vide Ex. 20 praying that the management be directed to pay him subsistence allowance for the period from 26.08.2011 till 13.06.2012. This application was opposed by the management on the ground that subsistence allowance had been withheld in terms of provisions of Rule 35(5) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short the Rules of 1981). By the impugned order dated 10.03.2014 the petitioner no.1 was directed to pay subsistence allowance to the respondent no.1 as per said Rules of 1981. 4. Shri A. B. Patil, learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that there was no jurisdiction with the School Tribunal to direct payment of subsistence allowance. He submitted that as the order of termination was under challenge before the School Tribunal and the respondent no.1 had been placed under suspension prior to his services being terminated, in view of law laid down by this Court in Sangam Education Society, Nagpur and another Vs. Bharti Hansraj Borkar and another 1995(1) Maharashtra Law Journal 847, the application as moved was not tenable. Without prejudice to said submission it was urged that as the respondent no. Bharti Hansraj Borkar and another 1995(1) Maharashtra Law Journal 847, the application as moved was not tenable. Without prejudice to said submission it was urged that as the respondent no. 1 was gainfully employed during the period of suspension he was disentitled to receive amount of subsistence allowance. It was submitted that the respondent no.1 had been running a bar and restaurant from 21.11.2006. As said activity was being done in breach of terms and conditions of the appointment order, respondent no.1 was not entitled to receive subsistence allowance. It was further submitted that the respondent no.1 had left the headquarters without prior approval of the competent authority and on that count also he was not entitled to receive the amount of subsistence allowance. He submitted that the learned Presiding Officer did not consider these aspects of the matter and instead directed payment of subsistence allowance. 5. Shri Y. S. Gorle, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 on the other hand supported the impugned order. He submitted that it was the liability of the management to pay subsistence allowance to an employee who had been placed under suspension. He submitted that permission to suspend respondent no.1 had not been granted by the competent authority and hence the petitioners could not be permitted to avoid the liability to pay subsistence allowance. In this regard he placed reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench in Geeta Ganpatrao Suryawanshi Vs. Shraddhey Mahila Bahuudheshiya Sanstha Taroda and another 2011(6) Maharashtra law Journal 466. He also referred to the order dated 3-7-2012 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1334/2012 that was filed by the respondent No.1 challenging the order of termination. He then submitted that the reasons put forth by the petitioners to deny subsistence allowance were not tenable in law. According to him the respondent no.1 had prior to his appointment informed the petitioners that he was looking after his family business and hence said fact was known to the petitioners. He relied upon communication dated 12.05.2006 to urge that the management had permitted the respondent no.1 to run said business. As regards leaving of headquarters it was submitted that said plea was not taken in the reply but was being urged for the first time in the written notes of arguments. According to him the respondent no.1 had never left the headquarters. As regards leaving of headquarters it was submitted that said plea was not taken in the reply but was being urged for the first time in the written notes of arguments. According to him the respondent no.1 had never left the headquarters. He, therefore, submitted that respondent no.1 had been wrongly denied amount of subsistence allowance and the learned Presiding officer was justified in directing its payment. He then submitted that on account of nonpayment of subsistence allowance the inquiry proceedings stood vitiated and in that regard he placed reliance on the decisions in K. Narasimha Reddy Vs. Andh. Pra. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad and another 1996 Lab. I. C. 2426 and Syed Ali Qambar Vs. State of Bihar and others 2001(91) FLR 820. He, therefore, submitted that there was no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent no.4 submitted that as the petitioner no. 2 Institution was not receiving any grants the liability to pay subsistence allowance was on the management. 6] Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the relevant provisions of the said Act and Rules of 1981 framed thereunder, in my opinion the School Tribunal is not empowered to issue interim directions to the management to pay subsistence allowance. 7. Under the provisions of the Rule 35 of the Rules of 1981 the management is empowered to place an employee under suspension pending inquiry. It is well settled that the effect of an order of suspension does not sever the relationship of master and servant. The effect of the order of suspension would be that the master does not desire to take the services of the servant during the period of suspension for which he is paid subsistence allowance. The manner in which subsistence allowance is to be paid is stipulated by Rule 34 of the said Rules. It cannot be disputed that the stage of placing an employee under suspension is a stage prior to inflicting the major penalty of termination of service. In effect, unless the services of such employee are terminated, he continues to remain in employment but under suspension. 8. It cannot be disputed that the stage of placing an employee under suspension is a stage prior to inflicting the major penalty of termination of service. In effect, unless the services of such employee are terminated, he continues to remain in employment but under suspension. 8. The question whether the School Tribunal has the power to direct payment of unpaid salary of period prior to the order of termination, dismissal, removal or reduction in rank was considered by learned Single Judge in Sangam Education (supra). After considering provisions of Section 11 of the said Act it was held that unpaid salary or unpaid emoluments of an employee of a private school prior to termination, dismissal, removal or reduction in rank cannot be claimed by filing an appeal before the School Tribunal. It was also held that direction to pay said amounts also cannot be issued by the School Tribunal after setting aside the order of termination, dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. This position of law is therefore clear in so far as jurisdiction of the school tribunal to grant relief under Section 11 of the said Act. 9. The expression “arrears of emoluments” occurs in Section 11(2) (c) of the said Act. The term “emoluments” has not been defined either in the said Act or Rules of 1981. The term “emoluments” would also take within its compass the amount of subsistence allowance. Considering aforesaid term in the context of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 the Supreme Court in R. P. Kapur Vs. Union of India and others (1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases 110 observed that subsistence allowance would form part of the term “emoluments”. It cannot be disputed that subsistence allowance is payable to an employee during the period of suspension which is naturally prior to the order of termination. Hence, considering the law as laid down in Sangam Education (supra) as regards lack of jurisdiction of the School Tribunal to direct payment of unpaid salary prior to the order of termination, it is held that the School Tribunal is also not empowered to issue any interim direction to the management to pay subsistence allowance as the same relates to a period prior to the order of termination, dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. 10. 10. At this stage it would be necessary to refer to order dated 03.07.2012 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1334 of 2012. Said Writ Petition had been filed by the present respondent no.1 challenging the order of termination. The relevant portion of said order reads as under: “Allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to challenge the order terminating the services of the petitioner by filing an appeal to the competent School Tribunal. Needless to state that the petitioner will be entitled to raise a plea and claim the relief of denial of subsistence allowance during the pendency of the enquiry. All such claims including for back wages shall be dealt with by the Tribunal in accordance with law. All contentions of both sides are kept open.” Though according to the learned counsel for respondent no.1 liberty was granted to claim subsistence allowance according to which the application at Ex. 20 came to be moved, it is to be noted that it was also observed that said matter would be dealt with by the School Tribunal in accordance with law. Said order cannot be read so as to confer any jurisdiction on the School Tribunal to consider prayer for payment of subsistence allowance. Hence, order dated 03.07.2012 cannot come to the aid of respondent no. 1. 11. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is clear that there was no jurisdiction with the School Tribunal to consider the application that was moved by respondent no. 1 vide Ex. 20. Consequently, it must be held that the impugned order directing payment of subsistence allowance is without jurisdiction. 12. As it is held that the School Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application moved by respondent no.1 for payment of subsistence allowance, it is not necessary at this stage to go into the question of entitlement of the respondent no. 1 to the amount of subsistence allowance as well as the justification put forth by the petitioners for withholding the amount of subsistence allowance. Said aspect is left open for being considered by the School Tribunal in the appeal challenging the order of termination. Hence, it is not necessary to consider the decisions in that regard relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1. 13. In view of aforesaid conclusion, the impugned order dated 10.03.2014 cannot be sustained for want of jurisdiction. Said aspect is left open for being considered by the School Tribunal in the appeal challenging the order of termination. Hence, it is not necessary to consider the decisions in that regard relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1. 13. In view of aforesaid conclusion, the impugned order dated 10.03.2014 cannot be sustained for want of jurisdiction. It is however necessary to clarify that the question as regards entitlement of respondent no. 1 to the amount of subsistence allowance, stand of the petitioners for withholding the same and the effect of non-payment of subsistence allowance are matters which are kept expressly open for being considered by the School Tribunal. The submission that non-payment of subsistence allowance has vitiated the inquiry proceeding is also left open for being urged before the School Tribunal. No opinion in that regard is expressed by this Court. 14. Accordingly the following order is passed: 1] The order dated 10.03.2014 passed below Ex. 20 in Appeal No. STN 81 of 2012 is quashed and set aside. 2] The question as regards entitlement of respondent no.1 to the amount of subsistence allowance, reasons for withholding the same and the effect of withholding such amount on the inquiry proceedings is left open for due consideration of the School Tribunal. All points in that regard are kept open. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.