IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3083/2002 [Vimal w/o Chandrakumar Dhote .vrs. Presiding Officer and others] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATE : DECEMBER 09, 2010. None present on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. A.D. Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for respondent no.5. By this petition, the petitioner employed in respondent no.2’s High School, has prayed for quashing and setting aside part of order dated 11.4.2002 passed by the School Tribunal to the extent of granting only 10% back-wages to the petitioner. By the said order, the School Tribunal has also set aside the order dated 28.3.1992 passed by respondent no.2 terminating services of petitioner and reinstated the petitioner with 10 % back-wages. Mr. Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for respondent no.5, by inviting attention to the judgment dated 30.11.2009 passed in sister Writ Petition No.1809/2002 filed by respondent nos.2 and 3 i.e. the Management against the same order passed by the School Tribunal, submitted that by said judgment the termination order dated 11.4.2002 passed by the School Tribunal has been set aside and appeal preferred against same by petitioner before the School Tribunal has been dismissed. He states that due to the said judgment and order the challenge made in the present petition does not survive and probably due to the same none is present on behalf of the petitioner. Since the petitioner and her Advocate is not present, this court has no advantage to hear them. The perusal of judgment dated 30.11.2009 passed in said sister writ petition supports submissions canvassed by learned counsel for respondent no.5. Hence, the petition is ordered to be dismissed as not surviving. JUDGE Gulande