Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2552 (BOM)

Ramesh v. State Of Maharashtra

2019-11-19

S.M.GAVHANE, T.V.NALAWADE

body2019
JUDGMENT : T.V. Nalawade, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, heard finally. 2. Petitioners from both these proceedings are employees of Ashram Schools run by the respondents. They have made allegations against the Management of the school that they were deceived by the Management by falsely representing that they would give appointments to the petitioners on permanent posts in the schools. Initially, orders on temporary basis were given to them. It is alleged by the petitioners that for giving orders on permanent posts, the respondents/Management have extracted money from them. They have mentioned the amounts which they were required to pay to the Management, which are in lakhs in each case. It is their contention that they were required to sell their lands and property to collect money. It is the contention of the petitioners that even when they paid the amount to the Management, the appointments on permanent posts were not given to them and they are thus deceived by the Management. 3. Petitioner Ramesh from Criminal Writ Petition No.1205/2019 has contended that he paid the amount to the Management in the year 2013. He was appointed on temporary post in the year 2007. The contention of the petitioners in the said Writ Petition shows that they were deceived from the year 2007 to 2014. There is record with some of the petitioners to the effect that when they insisted the Management to give the appointments or return the money, cheques of some amount were given to some of the petitioners but those cheques also bounced. 4. The State has filed reply. The reply filed by the State shows that there was scheme of the Central Government in respect of such Ashram Schools, residential schools of giving them grant-in-aid. 90% of the amount required to run the school was given by the Central Government. Surprisingly, the State has contended that the Central Government ought to have been made party-respondent in the present proceedings. These petitions are not filed for seeking relief of direction to give amount due to the petitioners and they are filed for seeking directions to register crime in respect of individual employees as those incidents took place on different occasions and each complainant has different story. 5. These petitions are not filed for seeking relief of direction to give amount due to the petitioners and they are filed for seeking directions to register crime in respect of individual employees as those incidents took place on different occasions and each complainant has different story. 5. The submissions made and the say of the State show that it is not disputed that the petitioners are employees of the aforesaid schools and respondent Nos.11 to 17 of the first proceeding are the trustees of the Institution which runs the schools. It is also not disputed that under Government Resolution of the year 2013, permission was granted to some schools of the Institution to run the schools on "no grant basis", but as per the scheme, they were also entitled to get the grants. The schools are to be run for the benefit of Scheduled Caste students. 90% grants are to be given by the Central Government and 10% grant is to be collected from the Non-Government Organizations. There is record of scheme showing that the posts are made available on the basis of strength of the students and there is such mention in the reply-affidavit of the State also. The amounts which are to be given to the employees, either as salary or allowances, are also mentioned in the scheme. Admittedly, such amounts are not given to the petitioners. 6. It is the case of the State that on the basis of the report given by one such employee, crime came to be registered on 20th August, 2019 at C.R. No.I-627/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It can be said that the concerned Police Station wants to investigate into all the matters, in respect of so many cases in C.R. No.I-627/2019 when the complaints are in respect of the incidents which took place between the year 2007 and 2014. 7. The learned counsel for the Institution/ Management submitted that there is some dispute between the employees and the Institution and the Management has given report against some employees and only to counterblast the reports, the allegations are made against the Management, which are false. The record produced by the Institution shows that under various counts, grant-in-aid is given and as per the scheme, the posts are presumed to be created on the basis of strength of the students. The record produced by the Institution shows that under various counts, grant-in-aid is given and as per the scheme, the posts are presumed to be created on the basis of strength of the students. Allegation that false representation was made to give appointment on permanent posts is the base of the matters. 8. It is not probable that due to some dispute between the employees and the Institution with regard to functioning of the Institution or the Management, false reports are given. The submissions made show that the amount around Rs.1.42 crore was collected by the Management from the staff members, which are 25 in number. It is the contention of the Institution that by way of salary from the year 2013 to 2018, the Institution disbursed the amount of Rs.1.82 crores. This submission made by the Management has no meaning as the Institution cannot be allowed to collect the money from the employees for giving the appointments on permanent posts and particularly when the Institution is entitled to receive grant-in-aid. This is nothing but exploitation of the employees and the instances of collecting money illegally for giving appointments to the employees cannot be taken lightly. 9. Under the provisions of Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, three offences of same kind committed within one year may be charged together. This is enabling provision and that cannot come in the way of the employees to raise their grievances individually. There are separate incidents of cheating in respect of each employee and in ordinary course, separate crimes need to be registered on the basis of the reports given by the employees in respect of cheating. If all the cases are clubbed together, it will create only complications and during the trial, there will be problems of all kinds and the case cannot be concluded within reasonable time. If there are separate cases, progress can be made at least in some cases and those can be decided expeditiously. In view of such difficulties and the position of law, this Court holds that separate crimes need to be registered on the basis of the reports given by each employee. In the result, we pass the following order:- ORDER (i) Both Writ Petitions are allowed. In view of such difficulties and the position of law, this Court holds that separate crimes need to be registered on the basis of the reports given by each employee. In the result, we pass the following order:- ORDER (i) Both Writ Petitions are allowed. (ii) Criminal Writ Petition No.1205 of 2019 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (C) and Criminal Writ Petition No.1497 of 2019 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (C). The prayer of registering crime is only granted. (iii) Crimes need to be registered in respect of petitioners on the basis of reports given by them. (iv) There will be liberty to the petitioners to approach appropriate forum for other reliefs. (v) Rule is made absolute in above terms.