bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2183 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO. 2183 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO. 2183 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 9434 OF 2004 PETITION NO. 9434 OF 2004 PETITION NO. 9434 OF 2004 Shivaji Maratha Society & anr. ... Applicants (Ori.Petitioners) v/s 1. Shri Dhananjay Prabhakar Avsarikar 2. University of Pune 3. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents Mr.S.V.Pitre for the applicants. Mr.Tanaji Mhatugude i/by Mr.A.V.Anturkar for the respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 22ND AUGUST, 2008 22ND AUGUST, 2008 22ND AUGUST, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The civil application has been filed for two alternate prayers. The first prayer is to stay the order passed by the Presiding Officer, College Tribunal, Pune in Appeal No.29 of 2003(P). In the alternative, it is prayed that the petitioners - the applicants herein be permitted to appoint any other suitable candidate to the post of Lecturer in Marketing Management in the institute of Management & Research run by the applicants. 2 2. While admitting the petition on 20.12.2004, the learned Single Judge of this Court had stayed the order of the Tribunal only with regard to the back wages. Thus, the respondent No.1 was entitled to reinstate in service. 3. It appears that despite the order dated 20.12.2004, the respondent No.1 has not reported for work, instead a contempt petition was moved by him being Contempt Petition No.172 of 2005 contending that the petitioners had committed a breach of the order of this Court by not reinstating him in service. This contempt petition has been disposed of on 10.4.2007 as the respondents in that case i.e. the applicants herein were ready and willing to reinstate the contempt petitioner in accordance with the order passed by the Tribunal on 25.8.2004. However, the contempt petitioner contended before the Court that he required three months to join duty with the respondents. It was also contended on his behalf that the respondents were not disclosing the salary and perquisites payable to him. While the contempt petition was disposed of by discharging the notices issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. the applicants herein, the Court recorded that the issue regarding salary cannot be adjudicated in a contempt petition. The Court further recorded the statement made on behalf of the respondents 3 i.e. the applicants herein that they were ready and willing to immediately reinstate the petitioner i.e. the respondent No.1 herein. However, the respondent No.1 herein chose not to report for duty. 4. The respondent No.1 then filed Writ Petition No.6269 of 2007. In this writ petition, the respondent No.1 herein sought a direction from the Court to the management to disclose how much would be the monthly salary payable to him after reinstatement. The Court disposed of the petition by observing that no direction was necessary as the College was bound to pay him the salary which is payable under the provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act or as stipulated by the All India Council for Technical Education (A.I.C.T.E.). 5. Even after this order was passed, the respondent No.1 did not report for duty. At the time of hearing of this civil application as well, the learned advocate for the respondent No.1 insisted that the petitioners should disclose the post on which respondent No.1 would be reinstated and the salary which would be paid on reinstatement. This clearly appears to be concerted effort on the part of the respondent No.1 not to join duties with the applicants - management. The order of the Tribunal clearly enjoins the management to reinstate 4 the employee as a Lecturer in Marketing Management in the institute of Management & Research run by the management w.e.f. 1.6.2003 with full back wages. Obviously, therefore, he would be entitled to be reinstated as a Lecturer. 6. In this view of the matter, instead of granting immediate relief to the applicants, the respondent No.1 is directed to report for duty by 1.9.2008. In the event, he fails to report for duty by the end of the working hours on 1.9.2008, the petitioners would be free to advertise the post of Lecturer in Marketing Management in the institute of Management & Research run by them. 7. If the respondent does not report for duty by 1.9.2008, prayer (b) to the civil application will automatically be granted and consequently prayer (c) will also stand granted. 8. Civil application disposed of accordingly.