1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1458 OF 2011 Vidarbha Youth Welfare Societies and another VERSUS Rameshwar J. Band - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MAY 03 , 2011 . Heard Shri Jagtap, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Saboo, the learned counsel for the respondent/caveator. 2) By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the University and College Tribunal on 20/10/2010 under section 61 read with section 63 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, directing the petitioners to pay the salary of the respondent for the relevant period, as also the order passed by the Tribunal on 8/2/2011 rejecting the review application filed by the petitioners. 3) It is not in dispute that the services of the respondent were terminated by the petitioners on 30/4/1990. The respondent challenged the termination order before the University and College Tribunal under section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act. In the year 1994, the University and College Tribunal, Nagpur allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent in service with continuity of service 2 and back wages. The petitioners challenged the order passed by the Tribunal before this court in a writ petition. The said writ petition was, however, dismissed by this court. It appears that there was an interim order operating in favour of the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petition. After the writ petition was dismissed, on a application filed by the respondent for speaking to minutes, this court observed that there can be no doubt that the dismissal of the petition would result in the interim order merging in the final decision and therefore the respondent, as a corollary, would be entitled to all the benefits which he was entitled to, under the orders of the University and College Tribunal, which was impugned in the petition. 4) After the writ petition was dismissed, the respondent filed an application before the College Tribunal under section 61 and 63 of the Maharashtra Universities Act claiming the arrears of salary from the date of the order of the tribunal directing his reinstatement till the date on which he was actually reinstated by the petitioners. The University and College Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 20.10.2010 allowed the application filed by the respondent. The petitioners preferred a review application against the said order but the same was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 8.2.2011. 5) On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the orders, it appears that the University and College Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned orders dated 20.10.2010 and 08.02.2011 and directing the petitioners to pay the salary for the relevant period to the respondent. The University and College Tribunal rightly 3 followed the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2010(9)SCC 437 with summarized the legal position to hold that the dismissal of a case or the withdrawal of writ petition culminated in automatic nullification of the interim order. The Tribunal relied on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also the observations made by this court on the application filed by the respondent for speaking to minute. On the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioners were liable to pay the salary to the respondent, for the period commencing from the date of the judgment passed by the tribunal in 1994 till the date on which the respondent was actually reinstated. Merely because there was an interim order operating in favour of the petitioners before the writ petition was dismissed, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not liable to pay the salary to the respondent for the relevant period. The Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case was justified in allowing the application filed by the respondent under section 53 of the Maharashtra Universities Act and also rejecting the review application as the petitioners had not made out any ground for reviewing the order dated 20.10.2010. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan