1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 684 of 1997 Chandrabhan V. Gedam VERSUS Secretary, Dnyankunj Vidya Prasarak Mandal and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A. D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. M. H. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for the respondent no.3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A. B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATE : JULY 14, 2011. Heard Mr. A. D. Mohagaonkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. M. H. Deshmukh, the learned Assistant Government pleader for the respondent no.3. In the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioners, we have perused the petition and the grounds raised therein. By this petition, the petitioners have sought a direction to the respondents to pay salary of the petitioners from the date of their appointments. During the pendency of the petition, three of the petitioners sought permission of this Court to delete their names from the array of the petitioners as their grievance had been redressed. Now, the petition survives only as regards the original petitioner no.4-Chandrabhan Gedam. 2 The prayer sought by the petitioner is for payment of regular salary as well as the arrears of salary. It appears that by an interim order, dated 08/10/1998, this Court had directed the respondent/Management to pay salary to the petitioner, regularly, untill further orders. This Court had also directed the respondent- Management to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner before 31/12/1998. The respondent was restrained from terminating the services of the petitioners and the Education Officer was directed to grant provisional approval in case of the petitioner. In view of the interim order dated 08/10/1998, it appears that the petitioner must have received the arrears of salary and must be receiving the salary during the pendency of the petition. Hence, nothing would survive in this petition. However, since the respondent-Education Officer was directed to grant provisional approval to the appointment of the petitioner, the Education Officer may consider whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of approval for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and if the petitioner, Shri Chandrabhan Gedam, is entitled for grant of approval, the same may be granted to the petitioner in accordance with law. The Education Officer should decide the question about grant of approval to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of the judgment. 3 The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Rule accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale