:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 744 OF 2006 Shri Dharma Nana Shinde ..Petitioner Vs. Adivasi Pragati Mandal & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Mandar Limaye for petitioner. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : August 16, 2006. Date : August 16, 2006. Date : August 16, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Limaye the learned counsel for the petitioner who had approached the School Tribunal in Appeal No.16 of 2004. The said Appeal has been allowed as per the Judgment and Order dated 9/2/2005 and the order of termination dated 30th April 2001 or 23rd or 30th July, 2001 as the case may be has been set aside. The petitioner has been directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and back-wages but from the date of registration of appeal till the reinstatement and the petitioner is aggrieved by this last part of the impugned order. As per the petitioner he should be directed to be paid the :2: back-wages right from the date of termination i.e. from 30/4/2001. 2. Mr. Limaye further submits that the petitioner had approached this court in Writ Petition No.3544 of 2001 and in the affidavit in reply filed by the Management it was pointed out that he was already removed from service and, therefore, the said petition came to be disposed off by this court on 1/7/2004. The petitioner approached the School Tribunal thereafter and, therefore, he must get the back-wages for the entire period. 3. There is no doubt that the respondent no.3 - School run by the Adivasi Pragati Mandal is an aided school and from the date of termination till the date of filing of the appeal there was about three years gap or more than three years and it is not the case of the petitioner that during this period he was being continued in service without any termination order and that he was conducting the classes as well. 4. Under the circumstances, the view taken by the :3: School Tribunal to grant back-wages only from the date of registration of the appeal till the petitioner is reinstated cannot be termed as perverse or patently erroneous so as to call for interference in the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. The petition is rejected summarily. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)