1 wp7579.08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7579 OF 2008 Jore Esooph Phatrusaheb ...Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Shri R.J.Godbole, advocate for the petitioner Shri S.K.Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 4 Shri A.V.Patil, advocate holding for Shri V.D.Gunale, advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3 ..... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 21 st December, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 The learned counsel Shri Godbole appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was terminated for second time on 31.12.2007. Thereafter again the petitioner approached the 2 wp7579.08 School Tribunal. The School Tribunal by judgment and order dated 17.7.2008 allowed the Appeal No. 6 of 2008. The operative portion of the said judgment and order reads as follows :- “1. Appeal is allowed. 2. The order cum notice dated 2.1.2008 issued by the respondent no.1 is quashed and set aside. 3 The respondents are directed to continue the services of the appellant as Assistant Teacher in their school. The respondent/management is hereby directed to reinstate the services of the appellant as Assistant Teacher and pay arrears of salary as per rules from the date of notice to the date of reinstatement forthwith and thereafter further salary as per rules and regulations of M.E.P.S. Act.” 3 The management preferred Writ Petition No. 818 of 2008 against the said judgment and order of the School Tribunal. Learned Single Judge ( Coram : B.R.Gavai, J.) passed following order in the said writ petition. “ 1 Rule. 2 Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (D). “ 4 According to the learned counsel Shri Godbole, the matter 3 wp7579.08 is posted for final hearing. The counsel submits that as per the order passed by this court on 2.2.2010, the management deposited Rs. 1,47,054/-. Accordingly, the petitioner received Rs. 1, 47,054/- and Rs.1,50,707/- towards the arrears of salary for the period between 19.9.2005 and 31.12.2007. The learned counsel submits that 6 th Pay Commission arrears are yet to be paid to the petitioner, and according to the Education Officer (Secondary) the arrears in accordance with 6 th Pay Commission come to Rs.1,10,627/-, which is required to be paid. 5 The learned counsel Shri Patil appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 submits that the dues towards salary as directed by the Division Bench of this court on 2.2.2010 have been paid to the petitioner. What the petitioner is claiming now is the amount towards difference of salary in accordance with 6 th Pay Commission recommendations. The counsel places reliance on the Government Circular dated 29.4.2009, precisely on clause 1 thereof. The learned counsel submits that even the Government policy is that the benefits of 6 th Pay Commission recommendations are to be received by the employees in five installments, and the said amount is to be deposited in their Provident Fund account. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim it in lump sum as arrears of salary by way of 4 wp7579.08 this petition. The counsel submits that the Writ Petition is pending before the learned Single Judge and the other issues in respect of the events which took place after the alleged termination of the petitioner on 31.12.2007 would be decided in Writ Petition No. 818 of 2009. 6 The learned A.G.P. Shri S.K.Kadam submits that the State is not entitled to reimburse the petitioner the difference of salary in accordance with the 6 th Pay Commission as the petitioner’s services were not approved. 7 The learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submits that the difference in the salary for the years 2005-2007 in the light of 6 th Pay Commission recommendations would be reimbursed to the petitioner in accordance with the Government Circular dated 29 th April, 2009. 8 The learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, after going through the calculations in respect of payment of salary state that as per the 5 th Pay Commission recommendations the management has to pay an amount of Rs.8,692/-. 5 wp7579.08 9 We have not clarified the issues which are pending before the learned Single Judge as raised by the parties in Writ Petition No. 818 of 2009. As regards the subject matter of this petition, we find, nothing remains more to be decided. 10 The petition is accordingly disposed of. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H.PATIL, J.) dbm/wp7579.08