1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4312 OF 2009. ( The President, Vidarbha Youth Welfare -: versus :- Pradipkumar Ramchandrarao Lambhate 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 : NOVEMBER 19, 2009. Heard Shri S.G. Jagtap, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri S.T. Harkare, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 2 and 3. The matter was also heard earlier. Respondent no.1 was called upon to show his bonafides. Without prejudice to his contention on merits, learned counsel for respondent no.1 has stated that , respondent no.1 has communicated to him to abide by courts orders in the matter. He however, states that respondent no. 1 is also opposing remand back to competent Authority, as it has the effect of curing lacunae. Learned counsel for petitioner argues that the documents now procured by the Management show that respondent no.1 was recruited as Principal in response to advertisement, which required 10 years teaching experience and he also wants to produce the document of work load 2 demonstrating that petitioner actually taught certain classes. According to him in this background, the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ahemdabad Private Teachers Association .vrs. Administrative Officers and others (JT 2004 [2] SC 27) is squarely applicable and the judgment of Chattisgarh High Court in the case of Administrator, Lahidhi Multipurpose Higher Secondary .vrs. Smt. Viddyavati Chaturvedi and others (2006 [109] FLR 759), will not be applicable. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 states that evidence was led before the competent Authority and there the petitioner accepted that respondent no.1 was engaged in supervisory and administrative capacity. He therefore, states that the production of these documents is nothing but an attempt to fill in the lacunae, which causes serious prejudice to respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 has already recovered entire amount of gratuity i.e. totaling to Rs.4,70,000/-/ Shri Jagtap, learned counsel has already stated that as representation for grant of revised wage and difference on that account has also been cleared and the said amount is also being released to respondent no.1, after pay bills are prepared. He states that, document sought to be produced are under the signature of respondent no.1 only. In this situation, as the very entitlement of respondent no.1 to gratuity may be disturbed by the said document, I find it proper to permit the petitioner to produce the same before the competent Authority. Respondent no.1 who has already withdrawn the entire amount of gratuity, shall furnish solvent surety to the satisfaction of the said 3 Competent Authority to assure recovery in case his claim is found to be misconceived. Petitioner is permitted to produce the said documents, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 7500/- to respondent no.1 before the competent Authority. After the documents are produced before the Competent Authority, the said authority to consider the issue afresh in accordance with the law. Parties are directed to appear before the competent Authority i.e. respondent no.2 on 22.12.2009 and abide by its further directions in the matter. Petitioners are directed to produce the document and to pay cost on 22.12.2009 before the said Authority and respondent no.1 shall also furnish the solvent surety, as mentioned above on the said date. Respondent no.2 shall attempt to decide the claim as early as possible, and in any case by 31.03.2010. The impugned orders passed by respondent nos.2 and 3 are quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in aforesaid terms. Rule accordingly. JUDGE Rgd.