1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8314 OF 2008 Kolgaon Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors. ...Petitioners. Vs. Smt.Sukhada Sudhakar Dhoke & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. M.S. Topkar for the Petitioners. Mr. S.A. Sawant for Respondent No.1. Mr.A. I. Patel, AGP for Respondent No.2. ..... CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. December 19, 2008. P.C. On 1st March 2001, an appeal filed by the First Respondent under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 was allowed. The management was directed to reinstate the First Respondent to her original post as a full time Assistant Teacher and to grant to her continuity of service from the date of the initial appointment – from the Academic Year 1994-95 and with regular increments and difference in pay, if any. The First Respondent waived the payment of back wages. The management did not appear before the School Tribunal 2 when the earlier order was passed. However, in compliance with the directions contained in the order of the School Tribunal, the First Respondent was reinstated on 29th August 2001. The First Respondent instituted proceedings under Sections 11 and 13 of the Act for implementation of the order dated 1st March 2001. The management has been directed by the Tribunal to implement the earlier judgment by the grant of annual increments from 1994-95 and the payment of arrears together with interest. The management has been directed to continue the services of the First Respondent by giving continuity of service from the date of appointment as stated in the judgment dated 1st March 2001. The contention of the management is that as a matter of fact, the First Respondent had not worked during the Academic Years 1994-95 and 1995-96 and that the First Respondent is not entitled to the computation of her seniority with effect from the date mentioned in the order of the Tribunal dated 1st March 2001. The management cannot be allowed to go behind the directions contained in the judgment dated 1st March 2001. The challenge well over seven years 3 after the earlier judgment of the School Tribunal cannot be entertained. There is no explanation as to why the management did not take necessary steps for challenging the earlier judgment. In fact, as noted earlier, the earlier judgment was implemented in part by reinstating the First Respondent. Having accepted the judgment of 1st March 2001, the management cannot be heard to say that it would comply the judgment only in part and that the rest shall not be accepted. The earlier judgment has to be implemented in its entirety. In the circumstances, the contention which has been urged on behalf of the Petitioners is lacking in merits. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners states that the salary bills of the First Respondent shall be submitted to the Education Department. Time for compliance with the directions of the School Tribunal is extended by a period of three months from today on the oral request of Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. The petition shall accordingly stand dismissed. ...... 4