{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4037 OF 2011 1 Gram Vikas Mandal, Pimpalgaon (Hare), Tal. Pachora, Dist.Jalgaon, through its President Shri Prabhakar Shamrao Patil, age: 66 years, R/o Pimpalgaon (Hare), Tal.Pachora, District Jalgaon. 2 Basantilal Hastimal Chopada, Secretary, Gram Vikas Mandal, Pimpalgaon (Hare), Tal.Pachora, District Jalgaon. 3 The Head Master, Gram Vikas Vidhyalaya, Pimpalgaon (Hare), Tal. Pachora, District Jalgaon. Petitioners Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 2 The Education Officer, (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. 3 Sunil Bhikanrao Garud, age: 42 years, Occ: service, R/o Pimpalgaon (Hare), Tal.Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon. Respondents {2} Mr.V.D.Sapkal, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.V.H.Dighe, A.G.P. for respondents no. 1 & 2. Respondent No.3 served. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND M.T.JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 25 th August, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai, J.): 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order passed by the Respondent No.2 thereby rejecting the bills submitted by the petitioners. 3 The Respondent No.3 was appointed as Librarian in the petitioner no.3-school. The services of the Respondent No.3 were suspended pendente lite enquiry. The suspension was with the permission of Respondent No.2. Subsequently, finding that the charges were proved, the services of Respondent No.3 came to be terminated. The Respondent No.3 challenged his termination before the learned School Tribunal. The appeal was allowed and the termination was set aside with a direction to pay 50% of the back wages. The learned Tribunal directed that the responsibility of payment of back wages was on the Management. Accordingly, the Management has paid the back wages. After the back wages {3} were paid to the Respondent No.3, the Management has submitted the bills with the Respondent No.2. The same is rejected by the Respondent No.2 on the ground that the learned Tribunal has saddled the responsibility only on the Management. 4 From the affidavit-in-reply, it is clear that the post, on which Respondent No.3 was working, was approved post and the said post was lying vacant during the period when the Respondent No.3 was out of service. It is, thus, clear that no additional responsibility is fastened on the State, if the bills of back wages of Respondent No.3 are paid. 5 In that view of the matter, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (B) and (C) with no order as to costs. The bills shall be sanctioned and the payment be made within a period of six months from today. M.T.JOSHI B.R.GAVAI JUDGE JUDGE adb/wp403711