-1- IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.798 OF 2008 NO.798 OF 2008 NO.798 OF 2008 The Principal, Elphinstone College, Mumbai ...Petitioner v/s Smt Swati D. Wavhal ...Respondent Mr S.R. Nargolkar, AGP for Petitioner. Mr A.S. Khandeparkar i/b M/s Khandeparkar and Associates for Respondent. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND J.P. DEVADHAR JJ. DATE : 21ST JULY 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for deciding this petition are that the respondent filed original application No.229 of 2006 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai challenging the communication dated 18th March 2006. The purport of that communication was that the respondent was not entitled to receive house rent allowance after she took over the charge of the post of Resident Assistant Superintendent and therefore, the amount of house rent allowance that was paid to her was sought to be recovered. That original application was decided by the M.A.T. by order dated 13th February 2007. The M.A.T. dismissed the said original application admittedly on a totally wrong ground. Therefore, a review application was filed which was registered as review application No.2 of 2007. In that review application, it was pointed out that the reason given for dismissing the original application is totally wrong and it was an admitted position. However, while deciding the review application on 30th March 2007, the M.A.T. instead of -3- setting aside the final order passed in the original application and restoring and hearing it on merit, allowed the original application without considering the merits of the case. In our opinion, once having found that the original application was wrongly dismissed, the Tribunal, after making review, could have set aside the order passed in original application, restore the original application to file, either hear it on merit on the same day or post it on some other day and after considering merits of the case, pass appropriate order. We find that the M.A.T. was totally in error in allowing the original application itself while deciding the review application. In these circumstances, in our opinion, following order would meet the ends of justice. 3. The order passed in review application No.2 of 2007 dated 30th March 2007 in so far as it relates to allowing the original application No.229 of 2006 is set aside and the communication dated 18th March 2006 is set aside. The original application No.229 of 2006 is restored to file. The M.A.T. is directed to hear that application on merits and dispose it off in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary as -4- true copy. . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( J.P. DEVADHAR J.)