1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVISION APPLICATION NO. 123 OF 2009 Bhartiya Christian Sangh, Jalgaon through its Chairman and another .. petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and othes. .. Respondent. --- Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for the applicant Mr. S.K. Kadam, AGP for respondent No.1 Ms. Surekha Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.3 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 26th August, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] By way of present application, the applicant is seeking the review of the order passed by this court dated 9/1/2009. 2] Heard Shri Kale, learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. Surekha Mahajan, the learned counsel for the respondent (original petitioner). 2 3] Shri Kale, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the since the permission to suspend the original petitioner was with the approval of the Education Officer, direction in the last paragraph to the management to pay the Subsistence Allowance to the writ petitioner was not warranted. He, therefore, seeks review of the said order. 4] From the perusal of the Annexure F, it would reveal that it is the contention of the review petitioner that permission was deemed to be granted by the Education Officer, If it is the contention of the review petitioner that the permission was deemed to be granted, the review petitioner would be at liberty to apply to the Education Officer, that in view of the deemed permission, the grants for payment of the subsistence allowance to the writ petitioner be released. The such a representation is made to the Education Officer, the same will be considered by the Education Officer on its own merits within 4 weeks from the date of receipt thereof. However, since the basic liability of making the payment of salary/subsistence allowance is on the management, we do not see any reason to invoke the review jurisdiction. 5] With the above observations, review application is disposed of. [N.D. DESHPANDE, J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/- 3