1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.182 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8742 OF 2009 Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Jivan Shikshan Prasarak and Apang Seva Mandal, Walgud, Taluka and District Osmanabad, through its President ..Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mr.A.S.Bayas, Advocate for appellant Mr.S.K.Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent-State CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 3rd August 2010 PER COURT : 1. This letters patent appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20.4.2010 in Writ Petition No.8742 of 2009. The aforesaid writ petition had been filed before the learned Single Judge of this Court by the present appellant challenging the order passed by the appellate authority setting aside the termination of the respondent herein and directing his reinstatement with back wages. 2. Upon considering the submissions advanced before the learned Single Judge on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Single Judge issued Rule and declined to grant stay to the order of reinstatement. The learned Single Judge further directed the petitioner to deposit the 2 admissible wages for the period between 26.6.2007 till 30.4.2009 in this Court within eight weeks of the date of the order. 3. Mr.Bayas, learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant has urged before us that the respondent herein was not entitled to the order of reinstatement and the order of payment of back wages on the ground that the appeal filed by the respondent herein was not maintainable. It is further urged before us that the order of reinstatement could not have been ordered by the appellate authority as no post was available and further that the order of reinstatement was against the established Government policy as spelt out in several government resolutions. According to us, the aforesaid submissions could not be considered as sufficient for challenge to the order of the learned Single Judge. Taking into consideration the submissions on merits, the learned Single Judge has issued Rule in the petition. Discretionary order of declining to grant stay has been passed by the learned Single Judge by observing that the order of reinstatement would be complied with and directed the petitioner to deposit the wages for the period 26.6.2007 till 30.4.2009 as a condition for grant of stay to the order of payment of back wages. 4. We have heard Mr.Bayas, learned Counsel for the appellant and we have perused the order of the learned Single Judge and upon such perusal, we do not notice any perversitiy in the reasoning of the learned Single Judge so as to warrant any interference in this appeal filed under 3 Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The appeal being devoid of any merit is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/182.10lpa)