1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 2215 of 1995 (Vilas Vithlrao Sawant Vs. Subhash Krishnaji Kshirsagar & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. H.A. Deshpande, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. R.M. Ahirrao, Adv. for R-1. Mr. P.S. Khubalkar, Adv. for R- 2 and 3. Mr. A.D. Sonak, A.G.P., for R- 4 & 5. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 5 th MARCH, 2009 The learned counsel for the parties had presented a compromise pursis in the Court on 14th of January, 2009. This Court had personally enquired from all the parties except the respondent no.4, who were personally present in the Court on 14th of January, 2009, whether they agreed on the terms mentioned in the compromise pursis. The parties had stated that they are ad idem on the terms of the compromise pursis at Exh. “Z”. Time was, however, granted to the Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent no.4 to verify whether the Education Officer was releasing the salary grants towards the 2 salary of the petitioner regularly. The matter was thereafter listed on 4th of February, 2009. A statement was made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader on that date that the State Exchequer was paying two persons for only one sanctioned post. In view of the statement made on behalf of the respondent no.4- Education Officer, the Court did not record the compromise at that juncture and adjourned the matter at the request of Shri P.S. Khubalkar, the learned counsel for the respondent- Management, who asserted that there were two sanctioned posts as there were certain communications issued by the Education Officer himself which demonstrated this fact. The Management desired to approach the Education Officer to substantiate the fact that two posts were sanctioned. When the matter is listed before this Court for final hearing today, it is brought to the notice of this Court by Shri Sonak, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent no.4, that there are nine posts of Teachers sanctioned in the respondent no.3- School and 3 the Assistant Teachers working in the School are also nine. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent no.4, on instructions received from the Education Officer on 3/3/2009, that the respondent no.1 would be absorbed on one post and regular approval would be granted to him from the time the Middle School was brought on 100% grant-in-aid. Mr. P.S. Khubalkar, the learned counsel for the Management, states that the Middle School was brought on 100% grant-in-aid facility since 1998-1999. It, thus, appears from the statement made on behalf of the respondent no.4 on the basis of the communication issued by the Education Officer on 3/3/2009 that there is no impediment in recording the compromise. A copy of the communication issued by the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal, on 3/3/2009, to the office of the Government Pleader, is placed on record at Exh. “Z-1”. Since the terms of the compromise are just, fair and reasonable, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the compromise stated in paras 1 and 2 of Exh. “Z”. 4 Writ petition is, therefore, disposed of in terms of Exh. “Z” with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP