1811mca642.10.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. MCA NO.642 OF 2010 IN W.P. NO.494 OF 2010 Mahatma Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. Ku.Indira Ramdasji Dongre and others ........................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................ CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE: 18. NOVEMBER, 2011. Heard Shri Deshpande, Advocate for the applicant, Shri Shende, Advocate for the non-applicant no.1 and the learned AGP for the non-applicant nos.6 and 7. Perused the order dated 25.3.2010 passed by this Court. Shri Deshpande, Advocate contends that as non- applicant no.1 was in service from 1.7.1998 she is not entitled to claim any salary from that date. Hence, the applicant can be asked to pay salary only from 10.7.1997 till 30.6.1998. Shri Shende, Advocate disputes this. He points that because of termination the non-applicant no.1 got job with difficulty where she was not getting regular payment or getting meager payment. Only after approval from the Education Department her salary could be properly released. He contends that noticing this situation the School Tribunal has directed the applicant to deduct the salary received by the non-applicant no.1 from other employer and to pay balance amount. After hearing the respective Counsel I find a .....2/- 1811mca642.10.odt 2 specific direction in this respect in the judgment of the School Tribunal in Appeal No.STC-05 of 1998 which was impugned in Writ Petition No.494 of 2010. It is, therefore, apparent that insistence of applicant/employer that it shall not release the salary for the period for which the non-applicant no.1 was working elsewhere is without any merit. The order passed by this Court on 25.3.2010, therefore does not call for any review or modification. MCA rejected. JUDGE BrWankhede ...../-