1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3414 OF 2010. Mah. Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and another. -: VERSUS :- Presiding Officer, Addl. School Tribunal, Nagpur and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 06, 2010. Heard Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, learned Counsel for petitioner, Shri Kankale, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 3 and Shri P.N. Shende, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. The School Tribunal has on 31.03.2010 allowed the appeal filed by the present respondent no.2, set aside his oral termination from 17.10.1992 and granted him reinstatement with continuity and 30% back wages for period from 17.10.1992 till 24.06.1993. On 24.06.1993 the School Tribunal granted interim reinstatement to him. Respondent no.2 joined service thereafter and has retired on 2 superannuation. Contention of Shri Bhandarkar, learned counsel is, respondent no.2 happens to be son-in-law of President of petitioner no.1 and he never worked even from 17.10.1992 till 24.06.1993, hence the direction to pay salary for said period is unsustainable. He has further contended that as the Education Officer is equally responsible in the matter, the petitioner should be permitted to submit the salary bills for said period to him and the Education Officer should be directed to pay this 30% of the amount. Shri Shende, learned Counsel states that there was earlier appeal filed in the year 1990, challenging same treatment and termination. That appeal was allowed and still respondent no.2 was not permitted to enter the school or join duties, hence the present appeal registered as STN No.313/1992 was required to be filed. His contention is, 30% wages as granted therefor deserves to be upheld. Learned A.G.P. has contended that the public revenue cannot be allowed to be misused and if it is case of respondent management that respondent no.2 never worked, respondent no.2 management ought to have taken appropriate steps in this respect. Facts show that the earlier appeal was filed by present respondent no.2 questioning his termination and that 3 appeal was allowed. He contended that inspite of that judgment in his favour, he was not allowed to perform his duties regularly. He therefore, filed present appeal bearing Appeal STN No. 313/1992. The petitioner management has not taken any steps to bring on record fact that respondent no.2 voluntarily abandoned his work and chose not to report for duties. Mere contention that he happens to be son-in-law of President, is not sufficient because he had entered the service in 1973 and till date of his second termination, he had put in about 19 years of service. I, therefore, do not find anything wrong with the application of mind by the School Tribunal. Petition is therefore, rejected. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.