Skip to main content
← back
Informative

Dinesh Manik Suryavanshi vs Education Officer, BMC – HC Bombay, WP 7687/2022, Termination Quashed, 50% Back-Wages Granted.

Update / Judgement Date

24 Oct 2025

Source

WCP News Bulletin

Author

Sakshi Bhardwaj — WCP Legal Desk

Reading Time

3 min read

Labour LawsOther Legal Matters
Dinesh Manik Suryavanshi vs Education Officer, BMC – HC Bombay, WP 7687/2022, Termination Quashed, 50% Back-Wages Granted.
WCP News Bulletin

Headnote

The High Court of Bombay quashed the termination of services of the Petitioner, Dinesh Manik Suryavanshi, as a Shikshan Sevak by the Education Officer, Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation. The Court held that the termination, based on pendency of a criminal case, was illegal as the Petitioner had been acquitted prior to the termination. The Court granted 50% back-wages for the period of unemployment and allowed consequential benefits of service.


Background

  1. The Petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak on 23rd January 2020 and joined on 31st January 2020 at “Maharashtra Housing Board English School P/N Ward.”
  2. A Police Clearance Certificate indicated a criminal case pending (C.R. No.I-333/2017), but the Petitioner was acquitted on 30th October 2021 (R.C.C. No. 767/2017).
  3. Despite knowledge of acquittal, the Education Officer terminated the Petitioner’s service on 12th April 2022.
  4. The Petitioner subsequently reapplied and was reappointed as Shikshan Sevak on 12th August 2024.
  5. The Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking:
  6. Quashing of the impugned termination order.
  7. Reinstatement in service with continuity and full back-wages.

\

Petitioner’s Contentions

  1. Termination was illegal and unjustified since the Petitioner had been acquitted of the criminal charges before the termination.
  2. Impugned order violated natural justice and principles of service law.
  3. Petitioner sought reinstatement along with back-wages and service continuity.


Respondent’s Contentions

  1. Termination was carried out following internal procedures based on Police Clearance Certificate and character verification circulars (MPM/2/1998).
  2. Opinion from Deputy Law Officer and Chief Personnel Officer supported termination as per departmental norms.
  3. Respondent opposed full back-wages, contending procedural correctness.


Court Observations

  1. The Education Officer was aware of the acquittal judgment (30th October 2021) but proceeded with termination on 12th April 2022.
  2. Termination based on pendency of criminal case after acquittal was wholly unjustified.
  3. Petitioner’s subsequent reappointment in 2024 was inconsequential for assessing the period of illegal unemployment.
  4. Petitioner’s counsel offered to accept 50% back-wages to render finality to the litigation; Court accepted this concession.


Decision / Order

  1. Writ Petition partly allowed.
  2. Impugned termination order dated 12th April 2022 is quashed and set aside.
  3. Petitioner granted 50% back-wages for the period of unemployment (till fresh employment), calculated from 31st January 2020 to 30th January 2023.
  4. Back-wages to include all consequential benefits and differences in pay scale.
  5. Payment to be made within 60 days, failing which simple interest at 6% p.a. will apply.
  6. Petition for full back-wages kept open if Corporation continues litigation.


High Court of Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction – Writ Petition No. 7687 of 2022

Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge & M.M. Sathaye, JJ.