1 W.P.10060.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10060 OF 2010 Suryakant S/o Kashinath Sagar Age : 52 Years, Occup.: Nil, R/o Walandi, Tq. Udgir District Latur. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Jambuvantrao S/o Girjappa Sonkawade Secretary, Gramin Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mrs.Kavita Bhale,Advocae holding for Mr.P.R.Katneshwarkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.V.D.Gunale,Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 4. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 12TH OCTOBER, 2011 PER COURT : 1. This Writ Petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd January, 2009, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur. 2 W.P.10060.10 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner invited my attention to the grounds taken in the Writ Petition and submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed, as a result respondent-Management is bound to pay the arrears towards salary and also salary till December 2001. Learned counsel further submits that, the reasons assigned by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, while rejecting the application, filed by the petitioner are not convincing and in case impugned judgment and order is allowed to be sustained, in that case the petitioner will be permanently deprived from getting his arrears towards salary till December, 2001. Therefore, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the Writ Petition would be allowed. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent-Management would submit that, all arrears and salary till December, 2001 are paid to the petitioner. 3 W.P.10060.10 4. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. From perusal of the impugned judgment and order, passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, the only reasons which are assigned by the School Tribunal for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner are in para No.8. Para No.8 of the judgment reads thus: "8. From the account given by the opponent/respondents it appears that they have paid the entire salary of the applicant of the period for which he worked in the school. The applicant has also not given the details as to how he is entitle to receive arrears of salary of Rs.4,19,001/- Therefore, mere statement of the applicant is not sufficient to hold that the opponents have failed to comply the order of this Tribunal. Now the appellant is not in service since December-2001. Hence, he is not entitled to claim any amount of salary for the period since December-2001. Hence, I do not find that the management failed, without 4 W.P.10060.10 any reasonable excuse to comply with the directions issued by this School Tribunal under section-11 of M.E.P.S. Act. Hence, I hold point Nos. 1 & 2 accordingly. 5. If the para No.8 from the Judgment of the School Tribunal, as reproduced herein above is perused carefully, it reveals that the Misc. Civil Application filed by the petitioner under section 13 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Service and condition) 1977, (Hereinafter referred to as “M.E.P.S. Act” for short) is rejected merely on the ground that better particulars are not placed on record by the petitioner. I find considerable force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, if the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal is allowed to be sustained, in that case, if at all the petitioner is entitled for arrears towards salary or any other benefits till he has rendered service with respondent- Management, he will be deprived from getting the 5 W.P.10060.10 same. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order deserves to be set aside, accordingly same is set aside. Misc. Application No. 44 of 2006 is restored to its original file. The petitioner will be at liberty to produce on record the better particulars in respect of arrears towards salary till petitioner has rendered the service with respondent-Management. The respondent-Management will be at liberty to place on record any documents in support of their contention, if they wish so. 6. It is needless to mention that, since the petitioner is redressing his grievance for considerable period, School Tribunal, Latur Region Latur will make endeavour to dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible, however within two months from today. The parties to appear before the School Tribunal on 20.10.2011. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed the opinion on merits of the matter and it is for 6 W.P.10060.10 the Tribunal to consider a fresh grievance of the petitioner and to give decision in accordance with law. The Tribunal shall not get influenced by any observations made in this order. The petition is allowed and same stands disposed off. Sd/- [S.S. SHINDE, J.] MTK