1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4747 OF 2010 (Smt. Asifa Banoo d/o Mr. Gulam Nabi vs. The Education Officer (Secondary) and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : MARCH 31, 2011 Heard Shri Shelat, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader for the respondent no.1, and Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Shri Shelat, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 passed an order of transfer dated 19/9/2006 whereby the petitioner came to be transferred from Nagpur to Arvi as an Assistant Teacher. The transfer order came into effect from 19/9/2006. The order of transfer was challenged by the petitioner by filing 2 Writ Petition No.5248/2006, which was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the Education Officer against the order of transfer. The Education Officer considered the representation and vide order dated 5/1/2007 quashed and set aside the order of transfer dated 19/9/2006. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that grievance of the petitioner is in respect of payment of salary for the period from 19/9/2006 to 13/1/2007. It is further submitted that the communication dated 21/11/2009 issued by the Education Officer to the Head Mistress of the School shows that the Management is asked to pay salary of the petitioner for the above referred period. Shri Patil, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3, states that since petitioner has not discharged her duty during the said period, question of making payment to the petitioner in view of decision of the Apex Court in Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India and others (2009) 2 SCC 592 does not arise. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to submit a leave application for the said period, 3 which will be considered by the Management in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard and appropriate steps will be taken by the Management thereafter. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties and considered the observations of the Apex Court in para (24) of the judgment in the case of Somesh Tiwari (cited supra), which read thus : “24. We, keeping in view the fact, that on the one hand the appellant did not join his posting at Ahmedabad, although no order of stay was passed and on the other wholly unwarranted and reprehensible conduct on the part of the Authorities of the respondents, are of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if during the period from 28/12/2005 till his joining his post at Bhopal, the appellant is treated to be on leave and the respondents are directed to pass an appropriate order invoking the leave rules applicable in this behalf. It is ordered accordingly.” It will be appropriate for the petitioner to make an application for leave for the said period to the respondent Management within a period of four weeks from today. If such application is made by 4 the petitioner, the respondent Management is directed to consider the same in view of the Rules applicable in this regard within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such application. With these observations and directions, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE khj