1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. L.P.A. NO.160 OF 2009. IN W.P.NO.4032 OF 2008 (D) Teachers Education Society & others V Sheikh Gulab Sheikh Ata & others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. A. Parchure, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. RV Shiralkar, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Amol Deshpande, Advocate for R-2. Mr. AT Mirza AGP for R-3 & 4. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M.REIS, JJ Dated : 28th July, 2009. 1. Heard. 2. Advocate Mr. Parchure for the appellant has pressed limited aspect. He contends that the entire burden for payment of back wages of the Respondent no.1 employee has been put upon the appellants. According to him, as liberty to hold the departmental enquiry was granted, the entitlement of respondent no.1 to back wages and payment thereof ought to have been differed till the departmental enquiry was conducted. However, he fairly points out that in the mean while the respondent has also retired on superannuation. 3. Advocate Mr. A. S. Chandurkar for Respondent no.2 and learned AGP for Respondents no.3 & 4 have pointed out that even before the departmental enquiry was concluded, the 2 Education Officer had written to the Head Master/Management pointing out that because of non compliance of rules, the suspension had automatically come to an end and the Education Department was, therefore, not responsible to have the liability of salary if any. That the learned Single Judge has found this position to be correct in para 4 of the impugned judgment The School Tribunal has also considered this and directed the present appellants to pay the salary. 4. In the circumstances, when reasons are recorded and the department has refused to reimburse the salary, it is found to be justified. The grievance made in the present LPA cannot be entertained. Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/