1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4217 OF 1999 The Secretary, Rail Child Sanstha C/o Saraswati Mandir and another ..Petitioners. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Pundalik Salve and another .. Respondents. .... Mr. R.S. Apte for the Petitioners. Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for Respondent No.1. Mr. R.M. Patne, AGP for Respondent No.3. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7456 OF 2000 Smt. Pushpa Pundalik Salve ..Petitioner. Vs. The Secretary, Rail Child Sanstha C/o. Saraswati Mandir and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner. Mr. R.S. Apte i/b Mr. A.A. Garge for Respondents 1 and 2. Mr. R.M. Patne, AGP for Respondent No.3. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 17th April, 2008. P.C. : 1. Writ Petition 4217 of 1999 has been instituted by the management in order to challenge an order passed by the 2 Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal at Mumbai on 12th March, 1999. An order of termination that was passed against the teacher, the First Respondent to the Petition filed by the management, was quashed and set aside and there was a consequential direction for reinstatement without backwages. The Petition filed by the management was admitted on 1st October, 1999 and while admitting the Petition the Court observed that there was no dispute about the fact that the teacher was reinstated on 28th September, 1999. The management was directed to pay the salary to the teacher from the date of reinstatement. 2. Counsel appearing for the First Respondent – Teacher has stated that subsequently the First Respondent was on 31st December, 2004 declared as surplus and was absorbed in Swami Vivekanand Mandir, Dombivli. Thereafter according to counsel appearing for the First Respondent on 20th July, 2006 the First Respondent was again declared surplus and absorbed in the Adarsh Vidyalaya at Kulgaon where she is working at present. In view of the fact that the teacher has, after the order of the School Tribunal, been declared surplus and absorbed elsewhere, Counsel appearing for the Petitioner fairly states that the Petition instituted 3 by the management would not effectively survive. The Petition is accordingly disposed of as infructuous. 3. Insofar as Writ Petition 7456 of 2000 is concerned, that is a petition instituted by the teacher in order to challenge denial of backwages. Now it is a well settled principle of law that the burden lies on the employee to establish that during the period since the date of the order of termination, he or she, as the case may be, has not been gainfully employed. On the basis of the record as it stands, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that the aforesaid burden was discharged by the Petitioner teacher. In the circumstances, denial of backwages by the order of the School Tribunal does not warrant interference. Writ Petition 7456 of 2000 shall in the circumstances stand dismissed. *****