( 1 ) wp36.06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 36 OF 2006 1. The Peoples Education Society, .. Petitioners Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar, Through its President. 2. Jamkhed Mahavidyalay, Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar Through its Principal. Versus 1. Miss Bhagyashri Vasant Gondkar .. Respondents alias Nand Kumar Namdas Age. 34 years, Occ. Nil, residing at Main Road, Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. The Joint Director of Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Pune Division, Central Building, Pune 411 001. Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. K.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR,J. DATED : 12.01.2011 ( 2 ) wp36.06 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. This petition is preferred by the Education Society against the judgment and order rendered by the University and College Tribunal, Pune, whereby and whereunder the respondent No.1 was directed to be reinstated in service as a Junior Clerk along with payment of salary on the basis of fixation of her pay-scale for the period from 01.01.1996 along with arrears of the provident fund etc. 2. There is no dispute about the fact that respondent No.1 was employed as a Jr. Clerk on the establishment of the petitioners in pursuance of an advertisement duly published in a news-paper dated 29th May, 1991. She was appointed w.e.f. 24.07.1991. She worked as a Junior Clerk for about couple of years. On 30th April, 1993, she was served with termination order. She was informed by the management of the petitioners that from 1st May, 1993, her services were terminated. Unfortunately, she was wrongly advised to file Complaint (ULP) No. 161 of 1993 before the Labour Court at Ahmednagar. She prosecuted such remedy before the wrong ( 3 ) wp36.06 forum till about year 2000. However, the Labour Court ultimately held that there was no jurisdiction available to entertain the complaint against the management and education institution. She being a member of non-teaching staff of the petitioners, she was required to approach the University and College Tribunal. Therefore, she preferred Appeal No.27 of 2001, which was allowed by the said Tribunal. 3. The petitioners’ contention is that respondent No.1 has been gainfully employed as a Lecturer in an aided educational institution and is working as such since 20th July, 2002 and therefore her reinstatement will be only illusory because she will not be interested in joining the duty. Mr. Choudhari appearing for respondent No.1 confirms this fact. He states that respondent No.1 is no more interested in joining duty as a Jr. Clerk as she is already employed as a Lecturer. The contention of Mr. Natu appearing for the petitioners is that the petitioners were not at all responsible for the wrong forum chosen by respondent No.1 and therefore the back wages for such long drawn period between 30th April, 1993 till filing of the appeal before the ( 4 ) wp36.06 University and College Tribunal could not be considered as a period for which respondent No.1 is entitled to claim back wages. He would submit that the petitioners are ready and willing to shell out a reasonable amount of the back wages on basis of pay which was being paid to respondent No.1, for the period of two years between filing of the Appeal No. 27 of 2001 and the impugned decision dated 12th December, 2002. 4. The only question to be determined as to what amount is payable to respondent No.1 as just and proper sum towards back wages. As stated before, even prior to the impugned decision, she was gainfully employed as a Lecturer and since then was not interested in joining the duty as a clerk on the establishment of the petitioners. Therefore, she is not entitled to claim any amount of back wages w.e.f. 20th July, 2002. So far as earlier period is concerned, she was prosecuting the matter before the wrong forum on basis of improper advice and there was no fault on the part of the petitioners to the extent of relevant period of about four years. At the same time, the petitioners cannot claim that respondent No.1 was not liable for any payment during the ( 5 ) wp36.06 relevant period because the petitioners could have reinstated her as a Junior Clerk if the termination was illegal. Another aspect to be noticed is that the pay-scale will increase due to subsequent developments. Mr. Natu submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to shell out Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifth Thousand Only) on hypothesis that it is approximate pay for the period of four years. This statement is also fallacious because her pay could not have remained static at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month. It would have been increased due to subsequent developments and particularly due to implementation of 6th Pay Commission. However, neither respondent No.1 nor the petitioners did work out as to what amount could have been made payable to respondent No.1. It would be fair and appropriate therefore to grant an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) to respondent No.1 towards back wages. The statement of Mr. Choudhari that the respondent is unwilling to join duty as a Jr. Clerk is recorded and therefore the impugned order to the extent of reinstatement will have to be set aside. ( 6 ) wp36.06 5. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order to the extent of reinstatement of the respondent No.1 is set aside. She will be entitled to receive an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) towards back wages for the relevant period as just and proper sum. The petitioners shall pay said amount to respondent No.1 within a period of two months hereafter or the amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. for future payment. 6. The petition stands disposed of. Rule made absolute accordingly. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2011/JAN11/wp36.06