:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5614 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5614 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5614 OF 2008 Manisha Nagesh Jirge ..Petitioner versus Arti Sadashiv Nannajkar & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. A. S. Gadkari for the Petitioner. Mr. Amit Borkar i/b. Mr. V. V. Purwant for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Nitin Jamdar for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Mr. A. P. Vanarse, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Order of MNC Pri Education Board, Solapur, dated 27.3.2008 directing the petitioner to prepare the bill of arrears of salary for the period from 1.12.2004 to 30.6.2007 in respect of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Order is contrary to law because the respondent :2: Nos. 1 and 2 are guilty of fraud and manipulation of records as a result of which they claim that they were rightly working as teachers for the aforesaid period. In fact, according to the petitioner but for the manipulated record there was no workload at all which justifies their employment and functioning. The learned counsel submits that the criminal complaint in that regard is also filed and is pending. 3. Mr. Jamdar, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, however submits that the impugned order was passed by the respondent No.3 in view of the directions of this Court dated 27.2.2008 in an earlier writ petition. Further, according to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 they were bound to direct the payment of salary since there was no challenge to the absorption of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the approval granted to them by the Education Officer. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that no action has been taken in respect of the absorption and the approval. 5. Having considered the matter, it is clear :3: that there is no reason at all to interfere with the impugned order, which is based on a valid absorption and approval. Indeed, unless approval and absorption are set aside, the entitlement of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the salary cannot be questioned in this manner. In this view, there is no merit in the petition, which is hereby dismissed. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)