Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2856 of 1996 Smt. Smita Chintamani Bhatkhande ...Petitioner v/s. Shri B.S.Sonaje, Headmaster, Mahatma Gandhi Vidyalaya, Ambernath & ors. ...Respondents Miss Kumud A. Bhatia for the Petitioner Mr. A.G.Kothari, Advocate for Respondent nos.1 & 2 Mr. A.P.Vanarse, AGP for Respondent nos. 3 to 5 CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATED DATED DATED : 23rd November, 2007 : 23rd November, 2007 : 23rd November, 2007 P.C. During the pendency of this petition, the Petitioner has retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 13-5-2000. In Appeal no. 81/1993 filed by her before the School Tribunal at Nashikk, she had agitated her grievance regarding superssession in her appointment to the post of Head Master and she had claimed that Respondent no. 1 was appointed to the post of Assistant Head Master in the year 1981, he could not have been considered senior to her for appointment to the post of Head Master more so when she was also 2 promoted to the post of Assistant Head Master w.e.f. 1-7-1992. As per her when both she and respondent no. 1 were holding the post of Assistant Head Master as on 1-7-1992 and when the post of Head Master was being filled in w.e.f. 1-10-1992, she was senior to him and, therefore, she ought to have been appointed to the said post of Head Master. The School Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgement and order dated 10-4-1996. 2. During the pendency of this petition, the Petitioner and the Respondent nos. 1 & 2 have arrived at a compromise and agreed to settle the disputes which are subject matters of this petition. The consent terms signed between the parties are taken on record and marked as ’X’ for identification. Respondent nos. 3 to 5 are not a party to the said consent terms and it is a compromise only between the Petitioner on one hand and the management on the other hand. 3. The management has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 60,000/- to the Petitioner as a special case towards the difference of salary and in terms of full and final settlement of her demands. The management further states that this amount of Rs. 60,000/- shall be paid from its own funds and it shall not claim reimbursement 3 of the same from the State Government. 4. The terms of compromise between the Petitioner and the management as noted hereinabove are noted and the petition is disposed subject to the management paying amount of Rs. 60,000/- to the Petitioner as a special case within the period of two weeks from today. 5. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]