1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.307 of 2007 In Misc. Civil Application No.349 of 2007 And Writ Petition No.1031 of 1994 (Decided) (Jeewan Vikas Education Society, Siraspeth, Nagpur v. Haribhau Santoshrao Nimbalkar and others) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for Appellant. Shri A.P. Raghute, Advocate for R- 1. Shri A.M. Deshpande, AGP for R- 2 and 3. CORAM : K.J. Rohee & R.C. Chavan, JJ. DATE : 14th December, 2007 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Respondent No.1 was serving as Assistant Teacher with the appellant from 1964. By order dated 25-9-1989 passed by the appellant, the services of respondent No.1 were terminated after conducting departmental enquiry against him. Respondent No.1 challenged his termination before the School Tribunal. By order dated 28-3-1994, the School Tribunal set aside the order of termination passed by the appellant and directed reinstatement of respondent No.1 with full back wages. The appellant challenged the said order of the School Tribunal by preferring Writ Petition No.1031 of 1994. While granting stay to the order of the School Tribunal, a Division Bench of this Court directed the Management to make payment to respondent No.1 for 2 the period from 1-4-1994. In view of this stay order, the appellant permitted respondent No.1 to join duties on 16-10-1996. On 30-4-2004, respondent No. 1 retired from the service after attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, by order dated 10-10-2006, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that because of the retirement of respondent No.1, the writ petition became infructuous. The appellant sought review of the said order. However, by order dated 12-4-2007, the application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The said order is being challenged by the present Letters Patent Appeal. It may be noted that there was no direction by this Court to the appellant to permit respondent No.1 to join duties and it was the appellant-Management, which permitted respondent No.1 to join duties from 16-10-1996. Thus, the appellant-Management itself submitted to the order of the School Tribunal, though there was a stay. In view of these circumstances, no fault can be found with the order of review. The Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE pdl