1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. C.A.Z.NO. 308/2010 IN L.P.A.ST.NO.20710/2009 IN W.P.NO.3958/1998 Wasudeo Pandurang Bijwe (dead through L.Rs.) -VERSUS- State of Maharashtra and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 24, 2011. Heard Shri P.B. Patil, learned Counsel for the applicants, Shri M.K. Pathan, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1,4 and 6 and Shri A.B. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. Prayer is to condone delay of 35 days in filing Letters Patent Appeal. Reasons for delay are supported by affidavit. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 Management and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1,4 and 6 are opposing the prayer for 2 condonation of delay. Respondent no.2 has filed reply affidavit. After hearing the respective counsel, we find that the illness of applicants who have filed this appeal is supported by proper medical certificate. We do not see any malafides, hence delay is condoned. Office to register the appeal. …........ On merits. Heard Shri P.B. Patil, learned Counsel for the appellants, Shri M.K. Pathan, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1,4 and 6 and Shri A.B. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. Shri P.B. Patil, learned counsel for appellants contends that the appellant as also the respondent no.5 Shri Gokhale, were only declared surplus on 08.08.1997 and there was no severance of relationship. The School Tribunal, therefore could not have taken cognizance of the dispute under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. He 3 contends that because of order dated 08.08.1997, the appellant/petitioner had joined other establishment and worked there till 02.11.1998, when he was terminated because of the order of School Tribunal dated 29.09.1998 allowing the appeal filed by respondent no.5. He contends that, that judgment of School Tribunal was questioned before learned Single Judge and though a ground of absence of jurisdiction was specifically raised, learned Single Judge has in paragraph no.9 found severance of relationship. According to him, there is no question of severance of relationship and till the employee declared as surplus is absorbed elsewhere, his salary is to be drawn by the management as he is continuing with the management. Nobody is appearing for respondent nos. 3 and 5. The appellant has expired during the pendency of the petition and appeal has been filed by his legal heirs claiming relief of arrears of salary. Hence, Notice, returnable on 25.01.2012. Parties to note that the Court may dispose of the Appeal finally at the stage of admission itself, if it is convenient to the Court. Appellant to serve respondent nos. 3 and 5 4 with notice to that effect, through Court as also by R.P.A.D. Notice in respect of respondent nos. 1,2, 4 and 6 are waived by their respective Counsel. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd