1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5743 OF 2010 Prabhu Vishwakarma Gramin Bahu Uddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Wardha - Through its Secretary Shri Vasantrao Wandhare VERSUS Gajanan Nathuji Hiwanj and 4 others. ........................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................... Shri S.D.Deshpande, Counsel for the Petitioner. Shri P.D.Meghe, Counsel for the R-1. Shri A.G.Mujumdar, AGP for the R-2. CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 28. JUNE, 2011. This writ petition challenges the judgment and order dated 25.3.2009 passed by the School Tribunal, (Nagpur) Chandrapur, in Appeal No.STC-14/2000. The School Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no.1, challenging his termination by an order dated 15.1.2000 from the post of “Peon.” The respondent .....2/- 2 no.1 is directed to be reinstated in service w.e.f.15.1.2000. He is also held entitled to back wages and continuity in service. Shri S.D.Deshpande, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute that the respondent no.1 was working as a Peon on permanent basis. He submits that w.e.f.15.1.2000, the Management of the School was handed over to the respondent no.5 and if at all the appeal is allowed and the order of the School Tribunal is to be complied with, the obligation is upon the respondent no.5. He however, does not dispute the fact that the termination of services, was by an order issued by the petitioner. Though the order of termination is not brought on record, from the stand taken by the petitioner before the School Tribunal which is reproduced in the judgment of the School Tribunal is, that the services of the respondent no.1 were terminated on the ground, that he never attended the duties and that there was no post available for his continuation in service. If these were the grounds for termination of permanent employee, then it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to conduct an enquiry. Undisputedly, this has not .....3/- 3 been done in the present case. Shri P.D.Meghe, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1, has brought to my notice the fact, that the Writ Petition No.2657 of 2009 filed by the respondent no.5, who is presently running the School, challenging the judgment and order impugned in this petition, was dismissed by this Court on 5.11.2009. In view of this, no interference is called for in the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE BrWankhede ...../-