1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.946 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1054 OF 2010 (D) (Rajura Education So., Warud vs. Commissioner for Tribal Dev., Mah. State) _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 26, 2011. Heard Mr.S.V.Sirpurkar, Adv. for the applicant and Mr.N.R.Saboo, Adv. for the respondent. After hearing the learned Counsel for the respective parties and after noticing subsequent receipt of salary by petitioner no.1, this Court has passed orders on 13th September, 2011. It has been noted that, because of these events, the order of dismissal/termination was not given effect to. In review, respondent no.4 is trying to urge that service of dismissal order is not necessary. Support is being taken from the judgment of the Apex Court reported at 1969 (3) SCC 28, State of Punjab .vs. Khemi Ram. The 2 learned Counsel has, however, fairly invited our attention to consideration of earlier judgment of Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported at AIR 1966 SC 1313, State of Punjab .vs. Amar Singh Harika in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the judgment in Khemi Ram's case. It is not necessary for us to go into said judgment as, here, we have, as a matter of fact, noted subsequent payment of salary to petitioner no.1. Mr.S.V.Sirpurkar, Adv. has contended that said payment of salary by the Administrator cannot be accepted as a payment by respondent no.4. We are not in a position to make any such distinction in the matter. The application for review is, therefore, misconceived. Hence, the same is dismissed. At this stage, Mr.Sirpurkar, Adv, seeks time of four weeks to enable respondent no.4 to consider desirability to approach the Hon'ble Apex Court. Mr.N.R.Saboo, Adv. is opposing the request. He points out that respondent no.4 has filed an application for that purpose before this Court on 19.9.2011, but that application was not circulated. He further states that the petitioner has reported for work on 19.9.2011 and thereafter, in presence of Project Officer, on 21.9.2011 and he has not been permitted to join the duties. 3 In the above situation, we reject the prayer. JUDGE JUDGE jais