1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 61 OF 2010 (Pusla Vibhag Sudhar Samiti Pusla & Anr. vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati & Ors.) with WRIT PETITION NO. 62 OF 2010 (Pusla Vibhag Sudhar Samiti Pusla & Anr. vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. FEBRUARY 10, 2010. Shri Lambat, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Thakare, learned AGP for respondent No. 1 and Shri Mirza, learned counsel for respondent No.2. After hearing respective counsel on last occasion, the matter was adjourned to 09.02.2010 at the request of Shri Mirza, learned counsel to point out whether Respondent No.2 is ready and willing to forgo some back wages. Today, Shri Mirza, learned counsel, upon instructions, states that as per impugned judgment of School Tribunal, Respondent No.2 is entitled to back wages only for about four months and he is ready to forgo wages for one month. Shri Mirza, learned counsel also wants to point out that on 05.02.2010, the Education Officer has granted approval to the appointment of Respondent No.2. 2 Shri Lambat, learned counsel points out that that approval is because of impugned judgment of School Tribunal. He insists that the appointment of Respondent No. 2 was not legal. I find that inter se dispute between management cannot be used to victimize Respondent No.2 and the School Tribunal has appropriately looked into that aspect. Respondent No.2 joined the services on 15.07.2005 and has worked almost for four years i.e. up to 29.06.2009 when he was terminated. The School Tribunal has granted reinstatement with full back wages. The order granting back wages is not supported by any reasons. Respondent No. 2 has not placed on record anything to show that during said period, he had no source of income or was not in gainful employment. Shri Mirza, learned counsel states that the burden was upon the petitioner to show that Respondent No.2 had any source of income. Shri Lambat, learned counsel disputes this. The law on the point is well settled. As Respondent No. 2 has not brought anything on record to show that he is entitled for full back wages, considering the facts on record, he is entitled to back wages only from 29.06.2009 till his reinstatement sometime in the first week of October 2009. The order of School Tribunal is modified accordingly. He is entitled to grant of 50% of 3 the back wages for said period. Subject to this modification, rest of the judgment of the School Tribunal is maintained. Writ Petition is partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.