IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3610/2008 Shri Ramchandra Samaj ..vs.. P.O.S.T. & ors =================================== CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE: 6.10.2008 Heard Advocate Haq for petitioners and Advocate P.S. Patil for respondent no.2 caveator. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent received salary upto 30.6.2005 and he was demanding salary from the month of July 2005. Thus otherwise termination from 20.6.2005 as pleaded by respondent employee itself is not established. It is further stated that all correspondence done by respondent was under U.C.P. and only the resignation was forwarded by R.P.A.D. It is therefore stated that the theory of using the earlier cheque by management, accepted by School Tribunal, is unsustainable. By placing reliance upon the judgment reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 187 [Carona Ltd ..vs.. M/s Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons] it is contended that when the very fact that there was no termination on 20.6.2005 has been established, the School Tribunal could not have granted any relief by taking into account subsequent facts. Advocate Patil states that respondent was prohibited from signing attendance register from 20.6.2005 and thereafter on each working day he has given communication in this respect and lodged protest. He further states that School Tribunal has therefore, rightly appreciated his conduct and also has found that story of management that respondent resigned from the post by forwarding the resignation on 19.7.2005, is itself incorrect. It is to be noted that the respondent might have received his salary till 30.6.2005, because management did not permit him to sign on attendance register on or after 20.6.2005. Thus receipt of salary by itself will not show that there was no otherwise termination from 20.6.2005. Grievance made from time to time is in relation to date 20.6.2005 and thereafter in separate communication forwarded for each day grievance in relation to events transpiring on that day has been made. There are 34 such UPC communications sent by respondent to Education Department. Considering these communications which are from 22.6.2005 onwards, contention that he resigned from service from 19.7.2005 has not been accepted by School Tribunal. Application of mind by School Tribunal in paragraph 12 and paragraph 14 in this respect is not demonstrated, to be perverse at all. The respondent has shown before School Tribunal that he was prohibited from signing attendance from 20.6.2005. The petitioner therefore, has failed to show that there was no otherwise termination on 20.6.2005 and termination was brought about only after accepting resignation dated 19.7.2005. I do not find any case made out for interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. No cost JUDGE smp.