1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.106 OF 2009 Shri Uttareshwar Sikshan Prasarak Sanstha & anr. ..APPELLANTS VERSUS Shahu Sukdeo Gambhire & anr. ..RESPONDENTS Mr V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the appellants; Mr R.T. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no.1; Mr V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for respondent no.2 WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.104 OF 2009 Shri Uttareshwar Sikshan Prasarak Sanstha and anr. ..APPELLANTS VERSUS Shrihari s/o Navnath Pawar & anr. ..RESPONDENTS Mr V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the appellants; Mr S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent no.1; Mr V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for respondent no.2. WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.107 OF 2009 2 Shri Uttareshwar Sikshan Prasarak Sanstha and anr. ..APPELLANTS VERSUS Prachand s/o Dadasaheb Bhusare & anr. ..RESPONDENTS Mr V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the appellants; Mr S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent no.1; Mr V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for respondent no.2. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. (Date of reserving the order : 8.9.2009 Date of pronouncing the order : 16.10.2009) ORDER (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.) These Letters Patent Appeals have been filed by the appellants questioning the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 24.4.2009. Since the challenges are identical and the orders passed by the learned Single Judge are identical, these Letters Patent Appeals are being decided by this common order. 2. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of these Letters Patent Appeals may briefly be stated thus :- 3 The respondents herein were appointed by the appellant - trust. The services of the respondent no.1 herein came to be terminated and as a result of which the respondent no.1 filed appeal before the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal by its judgment and order which are impugned in the respective petitions filed by the present appellants, allowed the appeal and directed the reinstatement of the respondent employee together with back wages. The appellants being aggrieved by the order of the School Tribunal allowing the appeal, filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for respondent employee who was a caveator before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 24.4.2009 granted Rule in the matter and by way of ad interim relief directed that there would be a stay to the direction insofar as the payment of back wages is concerned on the condition that the respondent no.1 employee therein is reinstated within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. The aforesaid writ petitions were directed to be heard together. The appellants being thus aggrieved by the aforesaid order have filed the present Letters Patent Appeals. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent employee has invited our attention to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (P.V. Hardas, J.) was a member, in L.P.A. No.132 of 2008, Dyanvikas Shikshan Sanstha & anr. vs. Rajendra s/o Shridhar Sagar & 4 anr. In the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal an identical order of the learned Single Judge was subject-matter of challenge. The Division Bench upon consideration of the submissions advanced before it by the learned Counsel for the respective parties dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal. 4. The Division Bench observed that the learned Single Judge has exercised his discretion in passing the aforesaid order and according to the Division Bench the exercise of such discretion, it could not be urged that the final relief had been granted to the respondent therein. The Division Bench came to the conclusion that the learned Single Judge felt it necessary to grant stay to the order of payment of back wages, but at the same time found it necessary that the stay be subject to certain conditions i.e. of reinstating the respondent in service. The Division Bench, therefore, found that no interference in the Letters Patent Appeal was required. 5. We have heard Shri V.D. Salunke, learned Counsel for the appellants in all the three appeals in support of the various grounds which have been urged in the Letters Patent Appeals. The grounds raised in the Letters Patent Appeals are similar to the grounds which were urged before the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.132 of 2008. It is also urged before us that perusal of the impugned order of the School Tribunal would disclose that the School Tribunal has passed the aforesaid 5 order in contravention of the settled principles of law. It is also urged before us that the appointment of the respondent itself was not in accordance with the provisions of law and, therefore, no right was conferred on the respondent and consequently the order of the learned Single Judge directing reinstatement as a condition for grant of stay to the payment of back wages was wholly unwarranted. 6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions advanced before us by the learned Counsel for the parties, according to us these Letters Patent Appeals merit no interference at our hands. The learned Single Judge while exercising his discretion has considered it necessary to grant stay to the payment of back wages on the condition that the respondent is reinstated within four weeks of the date of the order. The exercise of such discretion is neither arbitrary nor does it amount to finally deciding the petition or granting any final relief in the petition filed by the appellants. Therefore, according to us, there is no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal. Letters Patent Appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, these Letters Patent Appeals stand dismissed with no order as to costs. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/lpa106.09