1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2839 OF 2001 (MAHAVIR SHIKSHAN PRASARAK SAMITEE & ANR..VS.. RADHESHYAM RAGHUNATH PANDEY & 3 OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.B.G.Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. R. Sharma h/f. Mr. A. Parchure, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. V.A. Thakare, A.G.P. for Respondents No.2 to 4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 09, 2011. The learned counsel for the parties have presented a joint pursis in the Court today. The same is accepted on record. 2. The pursis is signed by the petitioners and the respondent No.1 and also signed by the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 Education Officer (Secondary), Respondent No.3 Deputy Director of Education and Respondent No.4 Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur are the formal parties. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.1 the settlement is effected between the petitioners and respondent No.1 only. 4. The learned counsel for the parties state that the parties have amicably resolved the controversy between the parties on the terms mentioned in the compromise pursis. 2 The respondent No.1 has given-up his claim for arrears of emoluments and the petitioners have undertaken to treat respondent No.1 in continuous service from the date of his appointment in 1987. It appears from the judgment passed by the Tribunal, that the Tribunal had already directed the petitioners to reinstate respondent No.1 on the post of Assistant Teacher. 5. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of in terms stated in paragraphs 5(i) and (ii) of the joint pursis. No order as to costs. Rule stands discharged. JUDGE RR..