1 wp2555.95 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2555 OF 1995 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. L.V. Sangit holding for Mr. V. J.Dixit, Senior Counsel for petitioners. Mr. Suryawanshi holding for Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mrs. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent nos.2 and 3 . 1. The parties have jointly tendered Consent Terms. Consent Terms are signed on each page by respondent no.1 and by Secretary i.e. petitioner no.2. On last page there are signatures of Headmaster for petitioner no.1 and of Secretary for petitioner no.2 and the respondent no.1 and of Counsel for respondent no.1. Similarly Counsel for petitioner also signed the Consent Terms, which disclose that the respondent no.1-Devendra is already reinstated in service and he has accepted that only if the Education Officer releases grants towards his back wages, then only he will be entitled to the same, otherwise he will not claim any back wages from the petitioners. Learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent nos.2 and 3 states that such compromise can not bind the 2 wp2555.95 respondent nos.2 and 3 in any way. 2. Respondent no.1 present before the Court in person, has accepted that he has been reinstated and compromise as recorded is entered into between the parties. Respondent nos.1 and 2 with their respective Counsel also state similarly. 3. In view of the joint statement made by the parties along with their Advocates, Consent Terms are accepted and same are marked as Exhibit `X' for the purpose of identification. Petition is partly allowed in terms of those Consent Terms. However, it is made clear that no obligation either financially or otherwise is cast upon respondent nos.2 and 3 by these Consent Terms and this order of High Court. 4. The impugned judgment of School Tribunal dated 28.04.1994 delivered in appeal no. 17/1992 is modified only to that extent. 5. Rule is made absolute accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no order as to costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 18.01.2011 gas/wp2555.95