1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.9173 of 2007 The Dnyan Prasarak Mandal Petitioner Vs. Shri Vasant Jabhau Bachhav & ors. Respondents With Writ Petition No.9175 of 2007 The Dnyan Prasarak Mandal Petitioner Vs. Keshav Nimba Ahire & ors. Respondents With Writ Petition No.9179 of 2007 The Dnyan Prasarak Mandal Petitioner Vs. Bhagwan Mangu Pawar & ors. Respondents With Writ Petition No.9189 of 2007 The Dnyan Prasarak Mandal Petitioner Vs. Sanjay Madhavrao Pote & ors. Respondents With Writ Petition No.9190 of 2007 The Dnyan Prasarak Mandal Petitioner Vs. Vijay Pundalik Khairnar & ors. Respondents 2 Mr.R.M.Hardas i/b. Mr.P.N.Joshi for petitioner. Mr.Anilkumar Patil for Resp.no.1 in all the petitions. Mr.S.K.Chinchalikar, AGP for Resp.no.3. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. March 18, 2008 P.C. 1. These five petitions arise from five different orders passed by the School Tribunal in separate appeals filed by each of the respondent - teachers who were Assistant Teachers in different schools run by the petitioner - Society. In these separate judgments impugned by the petitioner - Society, the School Tribunal has held that each of the appellant was a deemed permanent teacher under Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act, 1977 ("the Act" for short) and the termination of service effected was after a period of three years and that too without complying with the requirements of Rule 28 of the MEPS Rules, 1981. Consequently they were directed to be reinstated with full backwages. It is also pertinent to note that in all the appeals after receiving the notices through the School Tribunal, the petitioner - Society caused its appearance but did not take any steps to contest the appeals by filing Written Statement or any other 3 documents and thus the appeals proceeded and the Tribunal has decided the appeals on merits. 2. In all the appeals restoration applications were filed by the petitioner, but belatedly and hence a separate application for condonation of delay was filed. The School Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay but rejected the application for restoration in all the appeals and that is how the petitioner - Society has filed these petitions. 3. During the pendency of these petitions all the teachers except Shri Vijay Pundalik Khairnar (Respondent no.1 in W.P.9190 of 2007), have been reinstated with effect from 31/1/2008. Mr.Hardas, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that Mr.Khairnar did not report along with others and till now he has not reported for duty. He further submitted that if he reports for duty any time before the end of this month, he will be allowed to join. 4. The only issue that remains is the payment of full salary for the intervening period. As noted earlier, the deemed permanency status of the appellants within the meaning of Section 5(2) of the 4 Act cannot be disputed and the impugned termination orders before the School Tribunal were not preceded by the requirements in compliance with Rule 28 and Rule 29 of the MEPS Rules and, therefore, even if the appeals are restored, nothing further the management is likely to bring on record to contest the said appeals. It is also required to be noted that the respondent - teachers have reconsidered the whole issue and to maintain healthy relations with the petitioner - Society, they have conveyed their inclination through Mr.Patil, the learned counsel appearing for them, not to claim full backwages and in fact they have offered to accept 60 per cent backwages for the intervening period and they would not claim any monetary demands for the intervening period, provided the continuity in service and all other consequential benefits like pay fixation are available to them. I do not find any reason to hold that the offer made by the respondent - teachers is not reasonable and, therefore, the petitions are being disposed off by this common order. The impugned judgment and order of the School Tribunal allowing the appeals is modified as under: (a) The appellants - teachers shall be reinstated 5 with 60 % backwages and continuity in service. 5. The petitions are disposed off in terms of the above order. (B.H.MARL