1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Note Stamp No.3597 of 2011 for speaking to minutes In Writ Petition No.2578 of 2006 (Decided) (Rameshwar Paikuji Shendre v. Dinkar Balaji Bawankar and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Dr. R.S. Sundaram, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri P.V. Navlani, Advocate, holding for Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Smt. M.H. Deshmukh, AGP for Respondent No.4. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 25 th August, 2011 1. This is an application for speaking to minutes moved by the petitioner. 2. Writ Petition No.2578 of 2006 filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 20-4-2006 passed by the School Tribunal, Chandrapur, allowing Appeal No.STC/70/2004, has been dismissed by this Court by the judgment delivered on 21-2-2011. During the pendency of this writ petition, this Court had passed an order on 10-7-2006, which is reproduced below : “ Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, ad interim relief is confirmed. The petitioner shall file an undertaking within one week to the effect that in the event he fails in appeal he 2 shall refund all the additional monetary benefits which he would receive on account of he is working as Headmaster.” While delivering the judgment in this writ petition, there was no reference made to the order dated 10-7-2006, reproduced above, and hence the clarification is sought by this application to the effect that the difference of amount arising out of the salary paid to the petitioner as Headmaster and that of the post of Assistant Teacher from 1-9-2011 till respondent No.1 was appointed as Headmaster on 31-3-2011, should not be recovered, as the petitioner has already performed the duties on the post of Headmaster. Dr. Sundaram, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Narsing s/o Nagorao Hippargekar v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 947, for the proposition that if the petitioner has actually worked on the post of Headmaster, there will be no justification for recovery of the amount paid to him. 3. The operative portion of the order dated 20-4-2006 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No.STC/70/2004, which was the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition, is reproduced below : “1) Appeal is hereby allowed. 2) The impugned order dated 31/8/2001 giving promotion to the respondent No.3 with effect from 1/9/2001 is hereby quashed and set aside. 3) Respondent No.1 management is hereby directed to issue order giving promotion to the appellant with effect from 1/9/2001 and get him joined on duty to the post of Head Master in Yuwak Vidyalaya Vihirgaon within 30 3 days from the receipt of copy of this order. 4) Respondent No.1 is further directed to pay the difference of salary as well as ancillary benefits to the appellant since 1/9/2001 till the joining him to the post of Head Master within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. If in the case the respondent management fails to pay the difference of pay as directed above within stipulated period then respondent No.4 Education Officer Zilla Parishad Gadchiroli is hereby directed to deduct the same from the non-salary grant which is due and payable or which may become due and payable in future to the respondent management and its schools and pay the same directly to the appellant within 30 days after the expiry of 30 days period given to the respondent management. 5) No orders as to costs.” 4. This Court admitted the petition and granted an interim relief, subject to the condition as is specified in the order dated 10-7-2006, reproduced above. It is now well-settled position of law that the interim order passed by the Court does not confer any legal right upon the parties to the petition. No doubt, the exception is made in the judgment of the Division Bench, cited supra. However, the difference lies in the fact that the petitioner, knowing fully well the consequences of the order, has furnished an undertaking before this Court in terms of the order dated 10-7-2006 and hence he cannot now be permitted to resile from the said undertaking. In terms of the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal, the respondent No.1 is entitled to receive the difference of salary as well as ancillary benefits with effect from 1-9-2001 till the date of joining the duty as Headmaster. Two persons working on the same post cannot get the benefit. In view of 4 this, any direction contrary to the order passed by the School Tribunal, which is confirmed by this Court, would amount to review of the judgment delivered by this Court, which is not permissible in this application for speaking to minutes. 5. In the result, the application is dismissed. Judge. pdl.