1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5453 OF 2008 Rizwan A. Gani Vasta .. Petitioner Versus Rajapur Taluka Education Society and others .. Respondents Ms. Ranjana Todankar for the petitioner Mr. Girish Kulkarni i/b Mr. Sandeep Waghmare for Respondents 1 and 2. Mr R. H. Palekar, AGP for Respondents 3 and 4 CORAM: V. C. DAGA, & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED: 24 March, 2009 P. C. 1. Heard. 2. Perused petition. 3. By this petition the petitioner is seeking mandamus against Respondent No.4 to challenge the judgement and order dated 14.1.2008 passed by the President of the One Member Grievance Committee for Entertaining Complaints of Shikshan Sevaks in Appeal No. 41 of 2005, whereby the petitioner was reinstated in service as Assistant Teacher in Respondent No.2 School. 4. When this petition came up for hearing before this Court, considering rival contentions and rival allegations against each other, directed the petitioner to report on duty and in turn the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 were directed to permit the petitioner to resume duty. Accordingly the petitioner has resumed his duty and 2 has started working with the respondents 1 and 2. 5. Now the question which survives for our consideration is with regard to the back wages in respect to which there was no adjudication made by the Grievance Committee. 6. Letter dated 6.4.2008 (Exh. L) is brought to our notice, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has brought on record that he had gone to resume duty in the first week of April, 2008, but he was not allowed to join by the Head Master and the Director of The School since both of them insisted for execution of bond by the petitioner which was not the condition of the order of reinstatement. The petitioner refused to execute the bond. With the result, the respondents 1 and 2 refused to reinstate the petitioner. 7. Needless to mention that the insistence on execution of the bond by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was not legal and valid. Consequently, the petitioner was justified in refusing to execute the bond. The management could not have refused to reinstate the petitioner in view of the order dated 14.1.2008 passed by the One Member Grievance Committee, in which there was no condition leading to the execution of the Bond. 8. In the above view of the matter, the petitioner would undoubtedly be entitled to back wages. However, the petitioner himself has written a letter to the dated 4.6.2008, waiving his right to claim back wages for period, prior to 1.4.2008. Since the 3 petitioner himself has abandoned his claim for wages prior to the period 1.4.2008, he would not be entitled to claim back wages up to 31st March, 2008. The petitioner would thus be entitled to claim back wages w.e.f. 1.4.2008 onward and the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would be duty bound to pay the same to the petitioner. 9. Needless to mention that on making payment of back wages to the petitioner from 1.4.2006 till the date the petitioner has resumed duty, it would be open for the Respondents 1 and 2 to claim reimbursement from the Education Department. In turn, it would open for the Education Department to examine the validity of the claim of reimbursement made by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on its own merits, in accordance with law. Needless to mention that if total back wages are not paid to the petitioner within four weeks from today, the amount of back wages shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. till payment in full and final. The petition accordingly stands disposed in terms of this order with no order as to costs. ( MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V. C. DAGA, J.) jpc/-