1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 348/2007 IN Writ Petition No.4767/2006 (decided) Majlis Madarsa Eslamia Society and another ..vs.. Ibrahim Abbasali Syed and Ors. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: K. J. ROHEE & R. V. MORE, JJ. DATED : 20 th February, 2008 1. Heard Mr. R. L. Khapre, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. H. A. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Kankale, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. Respondent No. 1 was Assistant Teacher with the petitioners. He retired on completion of 58 years of age on 31.03.2000. According to him, he was entitled to be continued till completion of 60 years. Hence, he challenged the order of retirement by preferring appeal before the School Tribunal. By order 01.07.2002, the School Tribunal allowed the appeal. However, there was no question of reinstatement of respondent No. 1 2 because by that time he had completed 60 years of age. By the said order, the School Tribunal directed all the respondents therein namely the Management as well as the Education Officer to pay the appellant therein part of the allowances for the said two years. By order dated 21.03.2006, the School Tribunal directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 therein namely the Management to pay entire difference in allowances for the period of two years. Both these orders were challenged by the Management by preferring writ petition. By order dated 16.08.2007, the learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ petition and modified the impugned orders. The learned Single Judge held that respondent No. 1 (Assistant Teacher) was entitled to the salary of only one year. The learned Single Judge, further directed that 50% of one year's salary shall be paid by the Education Officer and remaining 50% shall be paid by the Management from non salary grants. The said order is under challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal. 3 3. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant/Management that there was no fault on the part of the Management in forwarding the claim of respondent No. 1 to the concerned Authorities and hence the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing the Management to pay 50% of the salary to respondent No. 1 from non salary grants. It may be noted that the leaned Single Judge has considered all these aspects of the case and after taking overall view of the matter, passed the order. Hence, we do not see any reason to interfere in the said order. The Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE kahale