1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLTE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6034 OF 2009 The President, Kavivarya Kushmagraj Adivasi Sutar Samiti,Nashik & Anr. ......Petitioner V. Smt. Sangeeta Bhaskar Patil & Others ...... Respondents Mr. S.K.Shinde with Sagar Kasar for the Petitioner Mr. H.N. Bhosale,AGP for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 CORAM : V.C. DAGA AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 7TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. 1 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. This petitioner seeks a direction against the State Government to make payment of arrears of salary to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the academic years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 and 2008 till date. The order of Division Bench passed in Writ Petition No. 6926/2008 on 12th December, 2008 in a petition filed by the present respondent No.1 was brought to our notice. The operative part of which reads as under:- 2 "The petitioner was appointed as a 'Cook' and according to her, she was terminated without any formal order of termination. She has annexed the order with the file,which shows that she was appointed on 11.6.2006 on permanent basis. This order was confirmed by the Project Officer on 15.5.2008. Now the Counter affidavits have been filed in which it is conceded that the oral termination order was passed and was served on the petitioner and argument has been advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the order of appointment itself had shown that the service was temporary and could be terminated at any stage and therefore, there is no need to pas any formal order of termination. There is dispute as to whether the order furnished by the petitioner regarding the permanent appointment is correct or the order furnished by the respondents with the counter is correct as both the orders are materially different. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner has forged the order, which she has annexed with the petition and the complaint is being filed against the petitioner before the appropriate Court. Whatever may be the case, the order of the Project Officer confirming the appointment on permanent basis is not alleged to be forged. This infact is admitted. Even if it is admitted that the petitioner is appointed on temporary basis, she could not have been terminated without passing any formal order of termination. Prima facie, the order of the project officer is valid. Therefore, in these circumstances we direct that the petitioner be forthwith reinstated and she should be paid her salary from the date her salary is not being paid to her. Matter be placed for further hearing after four weeks. Respondents should ensure compliance of this order by the next date." (Emphasis Supplied) 2 Reading the aforesaid order makes it clear that reinstatement was to follow with payment of arrears of salary. 3 Petitioner was expected to first comply with the above order of this Court which the petitioner has not yet complied with. Once the arrears of 3 salary are paid by the School Management/petitioner it would be open for them to raise bills for reimbursement to the Education Department of the State Government. At the same time it will be open to the State Government to consider the admissibility of such bills so as to take proper view with respect to the claim for reimbursement. In the event if the bills are rejected, it would be open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum to ventilate it's grievance. As on the date the petition being premature, it is liable to be dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. A.A. SAYED J. V.C.DAGA, J.