1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1802 OF 1984 The Principal, a Principal Officer of the Lala Lajpatrai College of Commerce & Economics...... ..... Petitioner. Versus Veena Bhatia & Others. ... ..... .... Respondents. Ms. S. Shaikh i/by M/s. S. K. Shrivastava & Co., for the Petitioner. Mr. H. V. Mehta with Mr. R. C. Master for Respondent No.1. Mr. Himanshu Kode for Respondent No.2. Mr. M. D. Naik, AGP for the State. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI and A. P. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : 11TH APRIL, 2008. P. C.: This petition is pending hearing from the year 1984. The main relief claimed is that the Government should be directed to alter the staffing pattern of the petitioner's institution or in the alternative set aside the impugned order. We have seen the award passed by the College Tribunal. The award is passed in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3. The award cannot be quashed as on fact the Tribunal has found that the termination was illegal and improper and there is no illegality otherwise pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner with respect to the Award. We cannot also direct the alteration of the staffing pattern on the ground that 2 respondent No.2 may have to be paid the arrears of salary. The College Tribunal has merely stated that the order of termination stands set aside and the respondent was directed to allow the appellants therein to continue in their respective posts which they were holding as before terminating their services with effect from 19th March, 1984. Whether they are entitled to arrears of pay or not is not a bone of contention before us and in any case even if they are entitled to arrears of pay that would not be sufficient for us to give direction to change the staffing pattern. 2. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 has also complained that respondent No.2 is not being paid arrears of pay. Those issues are outside the purview of this writ petition. If the petitioner is aggrieved that the award is not being implemented he has his own remedies. 3. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)