1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 4102 of 2010 Shri Sai Chhaya v. DSWO and ors -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr B.N. Jaipurkar, Adv for petitioner Mr P. Thakare, Adv for respdt no. 1 Mr K.A. Pujari, Adv for respdt no.2 Mr V.K. Paliwal, Adv for respdt no. 3 Coram: D.D. Sinha and A. P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 14th March 2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 19th November 2009 passed by respondent no.1 whereby the petitioner Sanstha is informed to include the name of respondent no. 3 in the Salary Bills required to be submitted by the petitioner Sanstha. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since respondent no. 3 is in the management and since his resignation was accepted by the management, there is no provision to include the name of respondent no. 3 in the Salary Bills. 3. Impugned order/communication dated 19.11.2009 issued by respondent no.1 demonstrates that there was a letter from the Charity Commissioner received by the Authority 2 whereby it was informed that the matters are pending before the Charity Commissioner and hence, it is difficult to state which is the managing body which is in force. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that by virtue of interim order passed by this Court dated 25.7.2001 in Second Appeal No. 167 of 2000 filed by the petitioner, Pramod Dadaji Anantwar continues to be the President of petitioner Sanstha who has accepted resignation of respondent no. 3 and, therefore, direction given by respondent no. 1 is not sustainable in law. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has submitted that he is working in the School as Superintendent and had also received salary till August 2010. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 has submitted that after taking into consideration all these aspects, the District Social Welfare Officer (respondent no. 1) has directed petitioner Sanstha to include the name of respondent no. 3 in the Salary Bills. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, apart from the fact whether inter-se disputes are pending before the Charity Commissioner or Second Appeal has been filed by the petitioner, fact remains that respondent no. 3 is serving in respondent no.2-School and, therefore, respondent no.1 has directed respondent no.2 School to include name of respondent no. 3 in the Salary Bills. It is even otherwise well settled that the management is required to pay the salary of its employees for the period for which the employee discharges his/her duty. 3 6. In the circumstances, petition suffers from lack of merit. It is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE joshi