1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4191, 4202 & 4203 OF 2009. ( Gopi Shikshan Prasarak and another -: versus :- Presiding Officer, School Tribunal and another ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : DECEMBER 15, 2009. Heard Shri S.G. Jagtap, learned counsel for petitioners, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri P.B.Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.3. The challenge is to judgment of School Tribunal dated 31.07.2009 by which services of respective respondent no.3 are ordered to be reinstated with full back wages. Last time Shri Jagtap, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has stated that because of subsequent developments, the management has reinstated respondent no.3 on 24.11.2009. He restricted his arguments to grant of back wages. According to him, considering the financial position of the school and the fact that respondent no.3 is reinstated and there are no malafides, the grant of back wages is not sustainable. In view of this arguments, the matter was adjourned to enable Shri Patil, learned counsel to take 2 instructions in this respect from respective respondent no.3. Today upon instructions, Shri Patil, states that respondent no.3 Teachers are not ready and willing to give up any back wages. He points out that during service they have received only 4 months salary for work done for a year. He also relies upon the various misdeeds and mal practice noticed by the School Tribunal and argues that, salary bills of respective respondent no.3 prepared by the management has been submitted to respondent no.2 Education Department. Learned A.G.P. for respondent Education Officer, states that there is no question of department paying the salary to the teachers and it is the responsibility of the management. He argues that in view of the findings reached by the School Tribunal, the Education Department cannot be sanctioned said salary. The salary bills are allegedly submitted by the management to respondent no.2 Education Department and Education Department is free to take appropriate stand in that respect in accordance with the law. However, the basic responsibility of paying the salary is that of management. The various mis deeds and mal practice noticed by the Tribunal, the same could not have occurred without any support from the department. In the circumstances, as respondent no.3 teachers are already reinstated and the period for which back wages are to be paid is from 07.03.2009 to 24.11.2009, the management is directed to pay 50% of the back wages as awarded to the respective respondent no.3 by 31.01.2010. If the amount is not so paid, the education department as also respondent no.3 shall be free to effect recovery thereof in accordance with law. 3 The impugned judgment of School Tribunal is modified only to that extent. Writ Petitions are partly allowed, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.